An NRI landlord seeking immediate possession under Section 13-B of the Act of 1949 must establish ownership of the building, and the distinction between 'owner' and 'landlord' is crucial in interpreting the provision.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. - By this order the aforesaid two revision petitions are being decided, since these have been filed by the same landlord, on same grounds concerning there adjacent shops against the identical orders dated 15.1.2016, vide which two rent petitions, bearing Rent Case No. 7 dated 26.7.2012 and Rent Case No. 4 dated 26.7.2012, filed on same grounds under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1949') were dismissed by the Rent Controller. The facts are being taken from CR No. 2832 of 2016.

2. The facts of the case in brief are, the petitioner/landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') being a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), on returning to India filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act of 1949, for eviction of the respondent/tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') from the shops in question. He claimed that his father Mohan Singh, being owner of the shops in question, along with other property falling on the backside of the shop, situated in revenue estate of Village Sutheri, near Hotel Maharaja, Hoshiarpur, had executed a registered Will dated 29.1.1980 in favour of his sons. His father expired on 28.3.1983. Thereupon, the petitioner along with his brothers inherited the estate of their father and became owners. The other co-sharers have no objection to filing of the eviction petitions and have consented to the same. It has further been pleaded that there are seven shops owned by the petitioner and his brothers, out of which two shops are in possession of the tenant herein, and other shops are in possession of other tenants, against whom separate ejectment petitions have been filed. Other property belonging to the petitioner and his brothers is at the rear of the shop, where a Saw mill is being run. They do not own or possess any other shop, nor have they vacated any such shop without any sufficient cause after enactment of the Act of 1949. On returning to India, the petitioner wanted to start his business of sale and manufacturing of wooden furniture by converting all the shops into a big showroom, and also sale of hardware items by opening Hardware Store.

3. The tenant filed written statement stating that Mohan Singh, the landlord's father, was not owner of the property in dispute as alleged. Execution of the Will dated 29.1.1980 (Ex.P/8) by Mohan Singh was also denied, as also the fact that the petitioner was co-sharer in respect of the shops in question. The land underneath the shops which are in tenant's possession, bearing no. 5 and 6, is owned by Gurmit Singh Manku, who got the shops constructed after getting the site plan sanctioned. After Gurmit Singh's death, shops no. 5 and 6 were leased out to tenants by his widow Balbir Kaur. Shop no. 6 was leased out vide rent note dated 12.3.1993, and shop no. 5 vide rent note dated 11.2.1995. Earlier Balbir Kaur received rent for both the shops against receipts, and later his son Amandeep Singh. Gurmit Singh Manku was exclusive owner of the shops in question which were inherited by his legal heirs after his death. House tax with respect to both the shops was being paid by the tenant, and in the Municipal records the shops were recorded in the name of late Gurmit Singh Manku. Electricity meter in both the shops from the date of construction was also installed in his name only.

4. On these pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Rent Controller:

1. Whether the applicant is Non-Resident Indian and has returned to India and requires the premises in question for his bonafide necessity? OPA

2. Whether the applicant has become co-sharer/co-owner of the premises in dispute for the period of five years before filing of present petition? OPA

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Relief.

5. Issues no.1 to 3 were decided together by the Rent Controller.

Firstly, it was held that the landlord failed to prove that he had returned to India permanently to start the