Raman Mittal vs Mangal Singh

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The tenant is in revision against order of the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar dated 04.08.2008 by which application filed by the landlord u/s 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] has been allowed and the tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises (shop).

The case set up in this revision is that the landlord has filed applications u/s 13-B of the Act against the two tenants although he could exercise his right only for once in respect of one premises, therefore, the petition u/s 13-B of the Act could not have been filed and the landlord, at the most, could have filed a petition u/s 13 of the Act. From the zimni orders passed by this Court, I have found that the decision in this case was deferred to await the decision of the Apex Court on the question of law as to whether the eviction petition is maintainable against the two tenants occupying two different shops in the same building. Ultimately, this revision petition was admitted on 18.01.2010 as the counsel for the parties stated that though the matter under consideration of the Apex Court has been disposed of, but it has to be argued independently of that decision, yet the arguments raised by learned Counsel

CR No. 4866 of 2008 (O&M)

for the Petitioner is again with regard to the same issue which has been mentioned here-in-above.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Swami Nath v. Nirmal Singh, 2010(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 663 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lakhwinder Kumar v. Pavitter Kaur (dead) through L Rs, 2010(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 279 to contend that where one building is occupied by different tenants, the NRI landlord can seek eviction of all the tenants for his own use u/s 13-B of the Act.Thus, the question is no more res integra as it has been authoritatively decided by the Apex Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also argued that the landlord has failed to show his personal necessity. I do not agree with learned Counsel for the Petitioner in view of a categoric finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller in para No. 6 of its order.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.