JUDGMENT :

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. Smt. Shanta Rani-tenant of Shop Room No. 2 at Guru Amardas Chowk, Model Town, Jalandhar, is the Appellant. Smt. Nasib Kaur-Respondent is the landlady.

2. The Appellant in the Civil Appeal assails the Order of Eviction ordered by the Rent Controller vide Order dated 19.02.2009 in Ejectment Application No. 334 of 2004 on the file of Rent Controller, Jalandhar and the Judgment dated 24.04.2002 in Civil Revision No. 2121 of 2009 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The Respondent initiated the eviction proceedings under Section 13, read with Section 13-B of the Act¹ [The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949] against the Appellant. The controversy between parties is stated thus.

3. The Respondent owns Shop Room No. 2 in Guru Amardas Chowk, Model Town, Jalandhar (from now on referred to as ‘the tenanted premises’). The Respondent is claiming the status of a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and has been residing in England for several years. The Respondent claims to have been pursuing avocation for earnings or gains in England. Due to the recession intervening in the regular activity of the Respondent, she has become without work in England. Therefore, the Respondent decided to relocate and settle in India and, in furtherance of that idea, decided to seek eviction of the Appellant from the tenanted premises for doing business in readymade garments. The Respondent placed on record and relied on the passport standing in her name to establish her status as a Non-Resident Indian. Though the prayer of eviction under Section 13-B of the Act is accepted, we deem it proper to refer to yet another circumstance, viz. that at the first instance, the Respondent filed the Eviction Application under Section 13 of the Act against the Appellant complaining default in payment of rent. The Respondent claims not to be in possession of a building in Punjab and that the request of the Respondent to the Appellant to vacate the premises did not yield a positive result. The Respondent also urges that the need is bona-fide and that she desires to do business in the tenanted premises. Hence, the Application for eviction.

3.1 The Appellant, on Notice of summary eviction proceeding under Section 13-B sought leave of the Court in terms of Section 18-A Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of the Act, to defend the eviction through summary procedure. The application seeking leave to defend is numbered as E.A. No. 334 of 2004. The case of the Appellant is that the instant eviction proceedings simultaneously initiated against Shop Room No. 1 and tenanted premises (i.e. Shop Room No. 2) are unavailable because Shop Room No. 1 was let out to a partnership firm, M/s Amrit Lal and Sons, by Rent Note dated 02.05.1994 and the tenanted premises to Amrit Lal S/o Chaman Lal vide Rent Note dated 07.02.1989. The Respondent, on a previous occasion, had filed two separate Applications seeking eviction of these individual tenants from these two shops. Further, the Appellant’s case on the maintainability of a joint Application for eviction is not adverted to, for the sole reason that the Respondent herself has clarified that the present ejectment is maintained for tenanted premises alone. Hence, the averments on this area of controversy are not adverted.

3.2 The Appellant averred that: (a) since the Respondent is a permanent resident of the United Kingdom and has not shifted to India, the petition for eviction through Section 13-B is not maintainable; (b) the relationship of the landlady and the tenant between the Appellant and the tenant is denied; (c) the Ejectment Application under Section 13-B (2) of the Act is not maintainable because an Ejectment Petition was filed concerning Shop Room No. 3 under Section 13-B of the Act. The Respondent is one of the owners of Shop Room No. 3 and, therefore, Section 13-B is unavailable for summary eviction of the rent from the tenanted premises. Considering the Respondent’s age, she is neither doing any b