NARINDER KUMAR Vs. CHANDRUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the civil revisions are at the instance of the respective tenants of property owned by the same landlord. The grounds of eviction are the same and the decision in one applies to the decisions for the other two cases as well, namely, of cases in Civil Revision Nos.2893 and 2894 of 2008 only. The petitions for eviction against the tenant-Vijay Kumar is dealt with separately in Civil Revision No.2895 of 2008 since a previous petition filed by the landlord was on a different ground. The facts set out hereunder immediately are the consideration of the respective contentions as regards the landlord's requirement under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) The landlord claimed himself to be a NRI and the petitions were filed through a power of attorney. The eviction was sought on the alleged personal necessity for the landlord. The Rent Controller has ordered eviction and it is contended that the petitions ought to have been dismissed since (i) the principal had not been examined and the evidence tendered by the power of attorney was not sufficient; (ii) the landlord owned other property which was vacant and the requirement was not bona fide; (iii) the evidence revealed that the landlord had intention to sell the property and the evidence as spelt out was therefore not genuine; (iv) the landlord had earlier filed a petition on the same ground and it was dismissed. The present petition was barred by res judicata.

(3.) As regards the legal bar for institution of fresh petition when an earlier petition was said to have been dismissed, it is seen that earlier the landlord had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act. In the earlier petition, there was a cryptic statement that the property was required for personal necessity and the earlier petition was disposed of not on merits. The petition was allowed to be withdrawn and the present petition was under Section 13-B of the Act.