MATTA FER Vs. PARAMJIT BHARATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 1946 of 2005 and Civil Revision No. 1947 of 2005 field by the tenants inducted by the respondents in respect of two separate shops, allegedly, part of the same building, Under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The respondents (husband and wife) herein sought the ejectment of the petitioner Matta Pher and his son of Ram Prasad and his son Hub Lal in Civil Revision No. 1946 of 2005 and Vivek Sareen petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1947 of 2005, from the shops in dispute as shown in the site plan in terms of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. It has been alleged that the petitioners were inducted as tenants 15 years back and that the respondents are the Non-Resident Indians being immigrant. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the premises are required for bona fide personal use for the purpose of constructing a show room by including both the shops to start business of ready made garments on modern basis, the petitioner sought leave to contest the said petition filed by the respondents Under Section 13-B of the Act, inter alia on the ground that the site plan produced by the respondents in incorrect and that the respondents have not disclosed the pendency of the other ejectment petition between the parties. The petitioners admitted their position as tenants but asserted that whole area is a residential area and there is o existence of any market in the locality. It is further pleaded that the owners have got one shop vacant and the whole building attached to the shop measuring, at least 10 marlas is also lying vacant and the owners if wanted can easily start their business in the said area. The petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to produce the documents to prove that they are Non-Resident Indians and are owners of the property for last more than five years. It was also alleged that the respondents have no intention to settle or to start business in this country. It was also pleaded that previously, the property was the ownership of one Gian Chand, while seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the documents of ownership.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller found that the respondents have proved the fact that they are Non-Resident Indians on the basis of certified copies of passport produced on record. A copy of the sale deed dated 13.2.1976 has also been produced by the respondents, which shows that the premises were purchased long time back. The Court, thus, found that the respondents have proved that they are Non-Resident Indians and owners of a shop for more than five years and that the averments made in the application for leave to contest, do not raise any triable issues. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller declined the application filed to contest the petition.