The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, particularly in relation to the bona fide requirement of NRIs and the principle of res judicata in eviction cases.

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The petitioner-tenant challenges the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Rent Controller, Pathankot whereby, eviction has been ordered under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') after leave to contest was granted in a revision petition filed under Section 18-A of the Act.

On 08.05.2017, the following contention was noted:-

"A perusal of the record would go on to show that eviction has been ordered under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') after leave to contest had been granted. A finding has been recorded by the Rent Controller that the respondent-landlord has to stay in hotels while visiting the home town at Pathankot. The premises are required for reconstruction and only a portion of the property is available with the landlord. The argument raised that on an earlier occasion in a petition filed in the year 1997 the ground of bona fide requirement had been decided against the landlord does not carry much weight since the second petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Act. Even otherwise, it is settled principle that the issue of bona fide requirement can arise on a subsequent occasion to the landlord. The eviction petition in question was filed on 08.08.2007 after a period of 10 years. In such circumstances, the Rent controller was well justified in rejecting the said argument raised and has rightly ordered eviction.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner submits that since he is a tenant since 1976, time is required for relocation and time be granted to file necessary undertaking to vacate the premises.

Accordingly, the proceedings are deferred for the said purpose for 22.05.2017."

2. Proceedings were deferred for 22.05.2017 whereby, counsel submitted that the petitioner does not want time for relocation and the matter be decided on merits. Accordingly, the present revision petition is being dismissed for the reasons given as under:-

The Rent Controller based his findings on the ground that the rented property which is two rooms, kitchen, bath room, which was described in the site plan as 'ABCDEF' and which is part of the residential building whereby, the tenant is using a common courtyard and an open compound was owned by the father of the respondent along with his sister. The respondent was an NRI since he was having a passport issued by the United States of America and he required the premises for his own use and living as he wanted to reconstruct the whole building. The premises which were available to him are very small and the entire building needed to be reconstructed and the house in question was approximately measuring 9 marlas. He was also unable to use the portion in his occupation on account of the conduct of the tenant. It was opined by the Rent Controller that the premises had been taken on rent from the father of the respondent which was admitted by the tenant and that there were two legal heirs namely the respondent and the sister Shakuntla Sharma. Resultantly, keeping in view the principles laid down in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005 (12) SCC 778, eviction has been ordered.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that on an earlier occasion, a petition under Section 13 of the Act had been filed on 16.01.1997 which was decided against the respondent on 14.06.2001. It was accordingly argued that the same was upheld on 04.06.2008 and once the bonafides have been doubted as such, the Court was not justified in ordering eviction in a petition which was instituted during the pendency of the appeal of the first petition filed under Section 13 of the Act. Reliance was accordingly been placed upon the judgment in Pawan Kumar Gupta v. Rochiram Nagdeo, 1999 (2) SCR 767 that it would now operate as res judicata.

4. The said argument is liable to be rejected as the judgment in question pertains to a finding regarding the principles of res judicata on the is