Eviction - Tenant can contest the ejectment application on the ground that need of the landlord is not bonafide with strong cogent evidence.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This order shall dispose of Civil Revisions No. 5159 and 5350 of 2005, filed by two different tenants against the orders of their ejectment passed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on two separate ejectment applications filed by the same Non-Resident Indian Landlord. Since in both these cases, identical questions of fact and law are involved, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The respondent-landlord sought ejectment of the petitioners-tenants from shops No. 11 and 6 forming part of the same building i.e. property No.B-XX-732, situated at Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana, under Section 13-B of the Act, on the ground that he requires the entire building including the shops in question for opening a show room of old and new cars. In the ejectment petitions, it has been pleaded by the respondent that he is a Non-Resident Indian and he has returned to India and requires the demised premises, which are part of one building, for his own use to open the show room. For that purpose, the entire building bearing property No.B-XX-732 is required. He has also pleaded that he is owner of the demised premises for the last more than five years.

3. The tenants filed the application under Section 18-A of the Act for leave to contest the ejectment applications which was granted and petitioners contested the same on the grounds that the landlord is not a Non-Resident Indian; he has no intention to come back to India; he has already got vacated another shop from a tenant under Section 13-B of the Act, hence subsequent ejectment petitions under Section 13-B of the Act are not maintainable, and the requirement of landlord is not bona fide. The Rent Controller., after taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, ordered ejectment of the petitioners. It has been held that the requirement of the NRI landlord is bona fide. He required the entire building in his own use. Both the shops are part of single building, hence the respondent-landlord can get the ejectment of demised shops under Section 13-B of the Act. Hence, this revision petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioners have made only two submissions. Firstly, that the respondent-landlord has already got evicted one tenant from part of the demised building under Section 13-B of the Act, therefore, he cannot get ejectment of all the other tenants, including the petitioners, from the other shops. Secondly, that the requirement of the respondent-landlord is not bona fide, and the finding recorded by the Rent Controller in this regard is against the evidence and based on surmises and conjectures.

5. Regarding the first contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the respondent-landlord is owner of 13 shops, out of which 8 shops were on rent with different tenants. All the 8 shops have different shutters and opening in verandah in front of the shops. Every shop is having independent access, therefore, all the shops are separate buildings and the same cannot be treated as part of one building. They further submit that out of these 8 shops, two shops have been got vacated by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the Act, therefore, the Non-Resident Indian-landlord cannot seek ejectment of the other tenants, because as per the provisions of Section 13-B, he can avail this right of ejectment only once during his life time. Counsel for the petitioners further submit that as per Sub-section (2) of Section 13-B of the Act, if the Non-Resident Indian landlord has let out more than one residential building or scheduled building or non-residential building, it shall be open for him or her to make an application under Sub-section (1) in respect of only one residential or scheduled or non-residential building, as chosen by him or her. Counsel for the petitioners submit that each shop let out by the respondent-landlord should be treated as