DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. CHARANJIT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of two petitions i.e. (1) CR No.3441 of 2008 titled as 'Deepak Kumar v. Charanjit Rai' and (2) CR No.3442 of 2008 titled as 'Kanta Devi v. Charanjit Rai' as similar questions of law on the basis of similar facts have been raised in both these revision petitions. Moreover, the landlord in both these petitions is the same and the petitioners in both petitions are occupying different units of the same property. However, for brevity, the facts are being taken from CR No.3441 of 2008.

(2.) The revision petition was admitted vide order dated 18.01.2010. Thereafter, respondent-landlord moved an application for vacation of stay, submitting before this Court that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent. The matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for amicable settlement between the parties; however the same was returned back. Thereafter, the main petition was also ordered to be listed along with the application for vacation of interim stay granted. This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 15.03.2008 whereby the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, has declined the prayer for leave to defend and has ordered his eviction from the demised premises on an application filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') by the respondent-landlord.

(3.) The facts arising out of the instant revision petition are that eviction petition was filed by the respondent on the averments that he along with his brother Dilbagh Rai was the owner of the demised premises which comprises of eight shops forming part of Building No.XXXIV-2224/1, Bassi Market, Joshi Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, and the petitioner was in occupation of Shop No.5, as shown red in the site plan, which is a part of the aforesaid building. There exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Respondent is an NRI and has returned to India and requires the entire property, of which the shop in dispute forms a part, for his own use and occupation. It was further stated that the climate of UK did not suit the respondent-landlord. It was further averred that out of the eight shops in the building, two shops have already been got vacated and the same have been demolished and there are six tenants in six different shops being part of the same property and against all of them the eviction petitions have been filed on the ground of personal necessity. It was further averred that the respondent-landlord has no other residential property except the property mentioned above and that he has not vacated any such property in the urban area concerned and thus the petitioner was liable to be evicted.