SATNAM CHANNAN Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller in terms of the provisions of 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the case of the respondent-landlord that the petitioner is a tenant in the shop in dispute @ Rs.125/- per month and by way of a family arrangement between the respondent and his brothers in the month of August, 1996, the premises exclusively fell to the share of the respondent.

(2.) It was alleged that the respondent-landlord is a Non Resident India and wants to start his own business in the shop in dispute and, therefore, he requires the shop for his own use and occupation. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of leave to defend was allowed. The parties have led evidence and the learned Rent Controller returned a finding that the landlord has become owner of the premises by way of family settlement and such settlement cannot be challenged by the tenant. It was also found that the landlord satisfies all the essential prerequisite conditions to seek ejectment of the tenant such as he is owner of the building for more than five years prior to the filing of the petition and is not possessed of any other accommodation. It was also found that the landlord is a Non Resident India on the basis of passport Exhibit PW1/D and a copy of Senior Citizen Card issued by the California State. PW2 Balwinder Singh is the son and attorney of the landlord and has deposed that the landlord went to America in October 1996 and lastly came to India in 2001 and went back on 25.10.2002. Thus, the learned Rent Controller passed the order of ejectment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the family settlement alleged by the respondent has not been proved. Though the learned Rent Controller has returned a finding that such family settlement cannot be disputed by the petitioner but as a matter of fact in the absence of family settlement, the respondent would be as one of the coowners as the family settlement was alleged between the brothers. As a coowner, the respondent is again entitled to seek ejectment for his bona-fide use and occupation of the premises in possession of a tenant. That is the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhannalal vs. Kalawatibai and others, 2002(6) Supreme Court Cases 16, which has been followed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 6938 of 2005 (Kewal Krishan Vs. Mohan Singh, decided on 9.1.2006).