The main legal point established in the judgment is that an eviction petition can be maintained by one co-owner with the consent of other co-owners, and objections raised by co-owners must be genuine to be entertainable.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

CM-21895-CII-2015

Prayer in the present application filed under Order 22 Rules 10 and 11 CPC is for arraying the applicant Mukesh Kumar as party-respondent No.3 in the main petition.

It has been averred in the application that during the pendency of the case, the applicant had purchased 15% share of the tenanted premises from previous respondents No.3 to 5 i.e. legal representatives of Sh. Varinder Singh vide registered sale deed dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure A-1), (presently proforma respondents No.4 to 6) and had become a co-owner of the tenanted premises. This application was filed as far back as on 28.09.2015 and vide order dated 13.10.2015, it was ordered that the said application will be taken up with the main case.

Arguments in this application were heard. Since none of the non-applicants had any objection to the prayer made in the present application, the same is allowed. Applicant Mukesh Kumar is impleaded as party-respondent No.3 in the main petition. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

CR-4987-2015 (O&M)

1. The present revision petition assails the order dated 30.05.2015, passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide which the eviction petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondents-landlords’) under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Act’) seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from Bay Shop No.1121-D, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenanted premises’) was allowed and the petitioner-tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondents-landlords within a period of two months.

2. The tenanted premises was allotted to one Late Sh. Balwant Singh (husband of respondent No.1 Harnam Kaur and father of respondent No.2 Devinder Singh Marwaha) by the Chandigarh Administration on 07.02.1984. Sh. Balwant Singh expired on 12.08.1986 after which his legal representatives succeeded to his estate. Sh. Balwant Singh was survived by his widow Harnam Kaur and three sons namely Devinder Singh, Tajinder Singh and Varinder Singh as also one daughter Ms. Anju Bala. The petitioner-tenant was inducted in the tenanted premises as a tenant by Smt. Harnam Kaur vide lease deed dated 18.06.1987. The lease deed renewed from time to time. Respondent No.2 is stated to have shifted to England in the year 1995 and is stated to have acquired citizenship in 2001. He, therefore, claimed to be an NRI (Non-Resident Indian), as defined under Section 2 (dd) of the Rent Act.

3. A petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Rent Act for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on the ground that respondent No.2 Devinder Singh Marwaha, who had been working at a petrol station in England, had suffered losses on account of recession and wanted to come back to India and intended to settle here so that his children could acquire the Indian values and traditions. It was averred that the whole family including all co-owners had decided that respondent No.2 would shift to India and would start a restaurant/fast food joint from the tenanted premises to which all the co-owners had duly consented. It was averred that the tenanted premises was located at a very favourable location from the point of view of running of a restaurant/fast food joint on account of there being several restaurants/hotels in the vicinity.

4. Upon notice having been issued, an application was preferred by the petitioner-tenant under Section 18-A of the Rent Act seeking leave to contest the petition. It was averred that the respondents-landlords had not approached the Court with clean hands and had filed the eviction petition on the basis of false, misconceived and concocted averments. It was averred that the petition did not fall under the ambit of Section 13-B of the Rent Act. It was also averred that there were many triabal is