PRITAM SINGH Vs. DILBAGH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is in respect of the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which Pritam Singh, petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was refused leave to defend under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to be ejected.

(2.) DILBAGH Rai and Charanjit Rai, both the respondents (the petitioners in the ejectment application under Section 13-B of the Act hereinafter referred to as 'respondents') preferred a petition for ejectment of the petitioner from Shop No. 1 forming part of property Unit No. B-XXXIV-2224/1, Bassi Market, Joshi Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, which was opposed by the petitioner (tenant) on the ground that as per rent note, Dilbagh Rai is the owner of the property, but no title-deed showing the ownership of the property has been placed on the file; no relationship of landlord, and tenant exists between the petitioner and Charanjit Rai respondent and the attorney cannot file the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. No document i.e. passport or other relevant record has been placed on the file to show whether Dilbagh Rai is a NRI or not. The petitioner further alleged that the respondents are owning several properties and have instituted eviction petitions against all of them; out of the eight- shops, they have filed the eviction petitions against six tenants, whereas, the amended provisions of the Act do not enable an NRI to seek ejectment of more than one tenanted premises. More so, one of the respondents have got possession of four shops and after getting possession, Charanjit Rai respondent has further let out two shops to other persons, subject to increase of rent every year; no partition had taken place between both the brothers; if the respondents were in actual need of the shop, then they would not have further let out the shops after getting possession and that the respondents have deliberately concealed the factum of having other business/commercial properties in their possession; the present petition has been preferred just to increase the rent. Finally, it is averred that the respondents do. not require the shop for their own use or occupation and they have no intention to settle in India and thus, their case does not fall within the purview of Section 13-B of the Act.

(3.) THE Rent Controller after hearing the parties refused to grant leave to defend to the petitioner and ordered his ejectment from the premises in dispute. Hence, this petition.