BAL KISHAN Vs. HARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 18.2.2005 whereby the application filed by the petition for granting of leave to contest was declined and an order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner in terms of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) IT is the case of the respondents that they are non-resident Indians (NRIs) as defined under Section 2(bb) of the Act. As respondent-Harjit Kaur had gone to Canada about 14 years back whereas respondent-Harjinder Kaur had gone to Canada after her marriage. It has been further pleaded that the respondent herein is in bona fide need of the shop in dispute as also the adjoining shop as detailed in the petition. It was also pointed out the respondents have already filed the ejectment petition against the tenant of adjoining shop but the said case has not been decided so far.

(3.) HOWEVER , the learned Rent Controller found that since Bishan Kaur had died, therefore, the respondents have succeeded to her estate and by operation of law, they have become owners. It was further found by the Rent Controller that since the respondents have inherited the share after the death of their father on 21.10.1972, the said respondents satisfied the requirement of owning the premises in dispute for a period of five years prior to the filing of petition under Section 13-B of the Act. In respect of another argument that other suitable accommodation is available with the respondents, it was found that petitioner has failed to show that the respondents are in possession of any other vacant adjustable accommodation within the municipal limits. In view of the said findings, the learned Rent Controller declined application of leave to contest and consequently passed an order.