(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of C.R. No. 3184 to 3196 of 2013 as identical questions of law have been raised in all these petitions filed on behalf of the tenants on the basis of similar facts and against one common respondent, who had filed the eviction petitions under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (for short 'the Act') against the petitioners for their ejectment wherein vide impugned order leave to defend has been declined to the petitioners and their eviction has been ordered. The respondent -landlord in the eviction petitions filed under Section 13B of the Act, claiming himself an NRI and co -owner of the demised premises for a period of more than 5 years prior to filing of these petitions stated that he is a Non -Resident Indian and he is residing in Norway and now he has arrived in India permanently and the shops in dispute as detailed in the eviction petitions are required by him for his own use as he intends to open a departmental store.
(2.) UPON notice of these applications, the petitioners put in appearance within the period as stipulated under law and filed respective applications seeking leave to defend the eviction petitions.
(3.) CHALLENGING the impugned orders, counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that there is sufficient material placed on record which establishes that various triable issues were raised before the Rent Controller. However, the same have been ignored and even the settled principles of law have not been followed and thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Elaborating further, counsel for the petitioners has referred to an averment made by one of the petitioners in his application for leave to contest to the effect that co -owner Satish Kumar had tried to purchase the shop in dispute through the mediation of a property dealer but on failure to accept the offer by him, the petition has been got filed by said Satish Kumar through the petitioner under Section 13B of the Act and thus, the present petition has been filed with an ulterior motive to make the misuse of the provisions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the respondent -landlord had rented out some shops in the year 2009 on enhanced rent. It is the case one of the petitioners that a tenant of shop No. 6 was paying rent directly to the brother of the respondent as the said shop had fallen to his exclusive share and thus, the respondent's eviction petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground that he was not his landlord and further was not the exclusive owner of the property. It has been further argued that the respondent has never visited India and is well settled in Norway and has no intention to return to India. Moreover, sufficient accommodation is in possession of the co -owners as it has been proved on record that half of the total property owned by the respondent is under occupation of the co -owners and thus, the need of the respondent landlord is not bona fide and genuine. Further argument has been raised that the property in question has been mutated in the name of the respondent recently and thus, he is not the owner of the suit property for a period of more than 5 years prior to filing of the instant petition and thus, various triable issues have been raised and the impugned orders whereby leave to defend has been declined, are liable to the set aside.