VINOD KUMAR Vs. GURDARSHAN SINGH BASRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the order passed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, 'the Act'), directing ejectment of the petitioner, he has filed the present revision petition. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Act for vacation of property No. 34/1, Banga Road, Phagwara, on the ground that he is a Non- Resident Indian and the petitioner is in arrears of rent and also the building was in dilapidated condition and unfit for human habitation. The ground for personal necessity with intention to start a joint venture with his grand son for establishing a multi media centre and a restaurant in the demised premises was also raised. The respondent had claimed the ownership over the property on the ground that the same had been decreed on his name through a judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Phagwara on 19.3.2007 and, thus, this property is now standing in the name of the respondent.

(2.) WHILE issuing notice of motion in this case, the contention raised on behalf of counsel for the petitioner that this decree would require compulsorily registration for being read into evidence as the respondent did not have any pre-existing right in the property, was noticed. In support the counsel has placed reliance on the case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh, Major and others, 1995(3) RRR 541 : (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 26 : A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 196. It was further pointed out that the respondent has only stated that he was intending to come back to India which would not show or prove a desire on his part that he would require his property for the purposes of settling in India.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties.