The court upheld the landlady's non-resident status based on documentary evidence and dismissed the revision petitioners' objections, finding no triable issue to permit leave to defend.

CM-1468-CII-2015

1. Application has been filed for proponing the date in the revision petition, which has been fixed for 19.03.2015. Heard.

2. In view of facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The date in the revision petition is preponed and is taken up today.

CR-5645-2014

3. The revision petitioners assailed the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby petition filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) was allowed and the application filed by the revision petitioners seeking leave to defend was declined.

4. Respondent No. 1 sought ejectment of the revision petitioners from the demised premises which is a shop bearing private No. 2-A forming part of building No. 379, White Tower, Madan Mohan Malviya Road, Amritsar. As per the petitioners, she is a non-resident Indian, presently residing in England for the last more than five years before filing of the petition (petition was filed in the year 2009). She was born and brought up in India and earlier residing at house No. 462-B/VI, Hukam Singh Road, Amritsar and shifted to England in the year 2004. The suit property was purchased by her along with Smt. Rajiv Bains, respondent No. 2 vide sale deed dated 20.07.1998. Revision petitioner No. 2 for revision petitioner No. 1 M/s. Sohan Singh and Sons had taken a shop on rent from the previous owner but after the sale deed dated 20.07.1998, they attorned the tenancy in favour of respondents. The entire property bearing No. 379 is measuring 159.33 square yards. There are other tenants also in the different portions of the entire building and the petitions under Section 13-B of the Rent Act had been filed against other tenants as well. Respondent No. 1 required the demised premises for her own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of her family members for starting her own business. The plea of personal bona fide necessity as pleaded in para 4 of the petition reads as follows:--

"That the respondents No. 1 to 3 are liable to be ejectment on the following grounds:--

(i) That the property in question is bonafide required by the petitioner for her own use and occupation and also for use and occupation of her other family members. The petitioner intends to return to India and wants to reside in India and to start her own business in the property in question and in the other portions of the complete building which portions are in the possession of different tenants as per details already submitted above and which portions and the property in question forms part of the same building i.e. building No. 379, situated at Madan Mohan Malviya Road, Amritsar. The petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and she was born in India and earlier was residing in India but later on shifted to England and is settled there for the last more than five years and at present is residing at the address given in the title of the petition but now she wants to return to India and as such complete building of which the disputed property is a part, is bonafide required by the petitioner for her own use and occupation and for her own business and for the business of her family members. The property in question was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1998 as per the details already submitted above. The petitioner is entitled to be put into possession of the complete building inclusive of the property in dispute and the ejectment petitions against other tenants have also been filed. The respondent No. 1 to 3 by making payment of rent to her has admitted the petitioner to be the landlady. The petitioner has neither earlier filed any ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act, as amended upto date, against the respondent No. 1 to 3 and other tenants before filing the present petition nor any ejectment order has ever been passed in favour of the petitioner regarding any such property. The present ground