JUDGMENT

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006 was taken up for hearing along with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.11719 of 2006 and 11720 of 2006 as the issues involved in all the three matters were the same. All the three matters relate to interpretation of the provisions of Section 13-B read with Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as "the 1949 Act".

2. The common case in all these three Special Leave Petitions is that the Respondents as Non- Resident Indians filed petitions before the concerned Rent Controller under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act for eviction of the Petitioners from their respective tenanted premises and that all the three petitions were allowed and eviction of the Petitioners was ordered. In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006, the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, Phagwara, moved the High Court in Civil Revision No.1146 of 2006.

3. In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11719 of 2006, the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Phillaur, moved the High Court in Civil Revision No.5979 of 2004 against the said order of the Rent Controller. Similarly, the Petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11720 of 2006 moved the High Court in Civil Revision No.5978 of 2004, since both the two matters were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 8th May, 2006.

4. The main challenge of the Petitioners in Civil Revision No.5978 of 2004 and 5979 of 2004 before the High Court was that the Respondent/landlord was not entitled to seek ejectment of the tenants from the property in question as he already had a shop room in his possession measuring 12 feet x 12 feet and was not, therefore, in bona fide need of the said premises. The said stand of the Petitioners/tenants was rejected both by the Rent Controller as well as the High Court. Having regard to the provisions of Section 13-B read with Section 18-A of the 1949 Act, both the forums were of the view that as a Non- Resident Indian, the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of the said provisions for recovery of possession contained therein.

5. Similar submissions were advanced by the Petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006 before the High Court. In addition, it was urged that under the provisions of Section 13-B, the landlord was entitled to exercise his right of option for immediate possession only once and that having obtained vacant possession of a shop room in the building in question, such right had been exhausted and the landlord was no longer

entitled to immediate possession as contemplated in Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. It was sought to be urged that a shop room in a building would have to be treated as a separate unit or building for the purposes of Section 13-B of the above Act as otherwise the very object of Section 13-B would be frustrated as the landlord would have to approach the Court repeatedly for obtaining possession of different parts of the building, which was not contemplated in the said Section.

6. The High Court negated both the submissions and while upholding the view taken by the Rent Controller with regard to the bona fide need of the landlord of the suit premises, the High Court also rejected the additional submissions regarding the interpretation of Section 13-B as sought to be urged on behalf of the Petitioners herein.

7. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Neeraj Jain, appearing for the Petitioners in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006, contended that the High Court had failed to appreciate the scheme and object of the 1949 Act which was meant to be a beneficial piece of legislation to protect the tenants from eviction from their tenanted premises from landlords whose needs were not as great as that of the tenants. It was urged that Section 13-B had been incorporated in the 1949 Act in 2001 as an exception to the provisions of the Act to