ASSA SINGH Vs. CHARANJIV SINGH GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has filed this petition to challenge the order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala, whereby the petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') filed by the respondent-landlord for ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises has been allowed and the application filed by the tenant under Section 18-A of the Act has been dismissed.

(2.) ASSA Singh tenant was inducted as a tenant in the shop in dispute by Mann Singh, deceased father of the respondent-landlord vide rent note dated 16.3.1971. After the death of his father, Assa Singh landlord filed the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act on the ground of his being a Non-Resident Indian (for short 'NRI') as he was a Green Card Holder in U.S.A. and he wanted the demised shop situated in Patiala to be vacated from the tenant as he wanted to settle in India. The tenant filed an application under Section 18-A of the Act with the prayer to contest the petition filed by Charanjiv Singh Gulati landlord on the ground that Charanjiv Singh was not the exclusive landlord of the demised shop and that he was not a Non-Resident Indian and is not covered by the definition given under Section 2(dd) of the Act. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller, Patiala, vide judgment dated 23.12.2003 allowed the petition for ejectment filed by the landlord and dismissed the application under Section 18-A of the Act filed by the tenant. Now Assa Singh tenant has filed the present revision petition to challenge the judgment delivered by the Rent Controller.

(3.) THE contentions raised by Mr. Sarjit Singh have been controverted by Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. It has been contended by Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, that Charanjiv Singh Gulati is fully covered under the definition of 'Non-Resident Indian' as given in Section 2(dd) of the Act and he has also proved himself to be the landlord of the demised shop for the purpose of filing a petition under Section 13-B of the Act. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the Civil Court decree dated 28.4.1995. Mr. Jain has also relied on Jagdish Lal v. Devi Dayal Sharma, 2004(2) Rent Control Reporter 97; Sohan Lal v. Swaran Kaur, 2003(2) Rent Control Reporter 407; Prem Kumar Patel v. Inderjit Singh Grewal and others, 2002(2) RCR(Rent) 203 (P&H) : 2002(3) PLR 829 and Smt. Kanta Goel v. Shri B.P. Pathak etc., 1977 Current Law Journal (Civil) 299 : 1777(2) RCR(Rent) 103 (Delhi). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the case-law on the point cited by them, I am of the considered opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be rejected being without any merit.