NEELI TV AND ELECTRONICS Vs. RAVINDER SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to an application filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the shop (situated on Dhangu Road, Pathankot, detailed and described in the title of the impugned order dated 01.02.2012), the Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the tenant, which has brought the tenant in this Court, invoking civil revisional jurisdiction.

(2.) The ejectment of petition was preferred by the landlord invoking special provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. It is claimed by the tenant i.e. the petitioner herein that the landlord had neither come to India nor had legally authorized his brother Sunil Sachdeva and mother Mrs. Aggya Wanti to file the ejectment petition. It is averred that signatures of the applicants/petitioners/landlords Ravinder Sachdeva and Manoj Sachdeva are forged. It is averred that there is no proper and legal attorney of Ravinder Sachdeva and Manoj Sachdeva-applicants in favour of Sunil Sachdeva. It is claimed that mutual settlement of the respondents-landlords is fake transaction merely brought into existence for the purpose of thwarting the claim of the petitioner-tenant. It is also urged that two premises have already been got vacated by the landlord and the shop in question even though is separate and distinct from the said two premises and also does not form part of the same building, even then it is sought to be vacated under special provision of Section 13-B of the Act. Claiming the impugned order of the Rent Controller to have been passed illegally, acceptance of the revision petition has been sought. Strong objections were taken by the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Controller by way of leave to defend challenging the petition. It was allowed. The petition was taken for adjudication. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce oral as well as documentary evidence considering which the Rent Controller had come to a firm finding against the tenant and ejectment order was passed against him.

(3.) When several objections questioning correctness of the ejectment order against him as mentioned earlier have been raised by the tenant, contention of the counsel for respondents is that there is nothing to impugn validity and legality of the order of ejectment against the petitioner-tenant.