AVTAR SINGH Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Civil Revisions bearing Nos. 1060 to 1062 of 2005 involve common questions of law and facts as the same have arisen out of an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Sec. 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the three tenants, to whom adjoining shops, which are part of one building, were rented out and all the three tenants have been ordered to be evicted by the learned Rent Controller vide orders dated 17.1.2005 on identical ground. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 1060 of 2005.

(2.) The respondent-landlord, who is Non-Resident Indian (for short "NRI"), residing in England, and is a "specified landlord" within the meaning of Sec. 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act") filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner for his eviction from a shop which was rented out @ Rs. 60.00 per month. The eviction was sought on the ground that the respondent has retired from his employment in England and with a view to start his own business of furniture workshop and to settle down in India, he bona-fidely requires the premises for his personal use and occupation. The respondent averred that he has not taken possession of any such building from any other tenant under the Act.

(3.) At this stage, it may be mentioned here that Sec. 13-B of the Act was incorporated in the Act by Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001. The statement of Objects and Reasons of the Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001 reveals that the State Government having realised the plight of the NRIs, who, after long years abroad, were keen to return to India but were unable to get possession of their properties back on account of rigid existing rent laws, that an amendment in the Act was required "to provide relief to NRIs to enable them recover possession of a residential or scheduled building and/or one non-residential building for their own use."