NELSON CHRISTOPHER Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -tenant has preferred this revision petition against orders dated 17.2.2007 passed by Shri Tarsem Mangla, Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking leave to contest the petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the Act for his ejectment from the premises in dispute and ordered his ejectment from that premises after refusing that application, on the ground that he is Non- resident Indian and his ownership regarding the demised premises matured more than five years back and he wanted to occupy the same for personal use and occupation.

(2.) THE facts are that the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that he is Non-resident Indian as defined under Section 2 (dd) of the Act. The petitioner is tenant under him though the rent is being collected on his behalf by his wife. He acquired ownership of this premises more than five years back and bona fide requires the same for his personal use and occupation. After service, the petitioner put in appearance before the learned Rent Controller and filed an application for leave to contest the ejectment application on various grounds. According to him the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist between him and the respondent and only Hardeep Kaur is his landlord/landlady. The respondent has suppressed the material fact regarding that relationship. The ejectment application is for partial ejectment and the same is not maintainable on that ground itself. He is not a Non-resident Indian and does not require the demised premises bona fide for his personal necessity. He owns and possesses another house bearing No. 317, situated in Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana. That application for leave to contest was contested by the respondent. In his reply, he denied all the contentions raised by the petitioner. He reiterated his averments as made in the ejectment application. The learned Rent Controller did not accept the contentions raised by the petitioner and resultantly dismissed his application and passed the ejectment order in favour of the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

(3.) ON the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that all the contentions raised by the petitioner in his application/affidavit for leave to contest were duly considered by the learned rent Controller and he negatived all those contentions. The respondent was able to prove that he required the building for his own use. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller suffers from any such illegality. In support, he has placed reliance on Prem Kumar Patel v. Inderjit Singh Grewal, 2002(2) RCR(Rent) 203 : (2002-3) Punjab Law Reporter 829. He prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.