LAWS(P&H)-2017-4-51

PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. BELA SINGH

Decided On April 17, 2017
PARDEEP KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Bela Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 7933-CII of 2017 Application for placing on record the rent notes dated 31.01.1990 and 02.12.2008 as Annexures P-1 and P-2 is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The same are taken on record. C.R. No. 2374 of 2017 (O&M)

(2.) The present revision petition challenges the order of the Rent Controller, Amritsar dated 14.02.2017 whereby, ejectment has been ordered under Sec. 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') from the two shop nos. 1 and 2 on the ground floor of building no. 170/13 Blue Plate No. 590/Xv-8, Black Plate No. 928/xv-8 situated in Abadi Husain Pura, Shivala Bhaiyan Road, Amritsar.

(3.) Senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that there were two separate tenancies of the two different shops on 31.01.1990 and 20.12.2008 and, therefore, one single petition was not maintainable 1 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2017 13:07:08 ::: C.R. No. 2374 of 2017 (O and M) 2 before the Rent Controller and two separate petitions should have been filed. It is also submitted that a false plea was taken that the landlord had returned to India and the premises were required for the personal use of the applicants and their families. It is submitted that they are permanent residents of Hongkong and their families are settled there and there is no bona fide requirement as such and a false plea had been taken which is confirmed by the fact that the entries in the passports showed that they had only returned once or twice during the pendency of the case which was initiated on 19.08.2012. Counsel further argued that there was vacant portion available as such since the building was multi-storeyed over and above the ground floor and there was sufficient accommodation available and the premises being a shop is not liable to be vacated for the use of the residence as such. It is accordingly submitted that the order directing eviction was not justified and the Rent Controller has not taken into consideration all these factors.