MANJIT ENGINEERING WORKS AND ANOTHER Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to an order, dated 30.4.2007, passed by the learned Rent Controller, declining leave to the petitioners to defend the petition, filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (for short herein after referred to as "the Act"), and consequently ordering their ejectment from the shop in dispute.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that while considering the petitioners' application for leave to defend, the learned Rent Controller committed an error by ignoring relevant material. It is submitted that the petitioners pleaded that in addition to the shop in dispute, the respondent owns two other shops. One of these shops is occupied by a tenant-Saudagar Singh. The land lord filed an ejectment petition on 17.5.2003, praying for ejectment of Saudagar Singh. The petition, however, was dismissed as withdrawn after Saudagar Singh agreed to enhance rent. On 15.6.2004, i.e one month and 12 days after the withdrawal of the ejectment petition against Saudagar Singh, the landlord filed the present petition for the petitioners' ejectment, under Section 13-B of the Act by alleging his bona fide requirement. Similarly, in the case of another shop, the respondent filed a petition for ejectment against the tenant Pritpal Singh. The petition was withdrawn in the year 2002 after the tenant agreed to pay the enhanced rent. It is argued that these facts have a material bearing on the petitioners' rights to seek leave to defend but the learned Rent Controller, by ignoring the facts, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners and has also committed an error of jurisdiction. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted to the learned Rent Controller for a fresh consideration.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the aforementioned assertions are irrelevant. Whether a landlord asserts a bona fide requirement with respect to shop A or shop B, the tenant cannot interfere with the landlord's choice. A landlord cannot be directed, whether by a Court or by a tenant to occupy a particular shop. It is further asserted that as the demised premises are best suited to the landlord's requirement, and as the assertions by counsel for the petitioners are irrelevant, the present petition be dismissed. It is further pointed out that petitions against Saudagar Singh and Pritpal Singh were filed under Section 13 and not under Section 13-B of the Act.