The main legal point established in the judgment is that genuine necessity and ownership rights of the petitioner, along with the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act, justified the grant of possession.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner Harbans Singh, aged 54 years son of late Sh.Harbhajan Singh @ Pajan Singh, temporarily staying at House No.1348, Phase - 3B2, Mohali had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against respondent/tenant Rameshwar Dass son of Rikhi Ram, resident of SCF No.1, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises).

2. Inter alia in the petition, the petitioner had contended that originally the demised premises were jointly owned by Surjit Singh and late Harbhajan Singh @ Pajan Singh, both sons of late Naranjan Singh in equal shares; the respondent was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises on 8.9.1978 vide a rent note on payment of Rs.1,100/- per month as rent; the respondent had increased the rent to Rs.10,000/- per month of his own since May, 2013; however, about a month before filing of the petition (the petition was filed on 19.12.2014), the rent was increased to Rs.10,400/- per month, which was being paid through cheque; that late Harbhajan Singh @ Pajan Singh expired on 28.9.2008 at Delhi and petitioner is his son; Harbhajan Singh @ Pajan Singh had executed a Will dated 26.6.1998 in favour of the petitioner bequeathing the ownership rights in the demised premises to the petitioner, as such after death of late Harbhajan Singh @ Pajan Singh, the petitioner became owner of the demised premises to the extent of rights of late Harbhajan Singh @ Pajan Singh and necessary entry in that regard has been made in the record of Estate Office, Chandigarh; the petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian (hereinafter referred to as NRI) and is joint owner of the property in question for the last more than 5 years; he has decided to return to India to settle here permanently and in order to earn his livelihood, the petitioner intends to open a grocery shop in the demised premises after getting it vacated from the respondent.

The petitioner along with Surjit Singh the other co-owner of the demised premises requested the respondent to vacate such premises but respondent refused to do so. According to the petitioner, Surjit Singh, the other co-owner of the demised premises is also an NRI presently living in Malaysia. According to the petitioner since his need is bona fide, honest and urgent, therefore, the petition be accepted.

3. Notice of the petition was given to respondent/tenant, who put in appearance and filed an application seeking leave to contest the petition stating that respondent/tenant had come in occupation of the demised premises in the year 1978 through Sh.Niranjan Singh son of Cheta Singh, initially on payment of Rs.1,100/- per month as rent, which was increased from time to time; the respondent/tenant has never paid any rent to Harbans Singh or Harbhajan Singh, therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner; the demised premises are owned by Surjit Singh and Harbhajan Singh, whereas the present petition has been filed by Harbans Singh son of Pajan Singh. According to the respondent, Harbans Singh is not son of Harbhajan Singh but is son of Pajan Singh and he has invented a devise to file the present petition as Harbans Singh son of Harbhajan Singh @ Pajan Singh. Therefore, the petition be dismissed.

4. The respondent/tenant further contended that Harbans Singh son of Pajan Singh as is evident from the copy of passport is a foreigner and not NRI since the petitioner not even alleged in the petition that Harbans Singh is a person of Indian origin. The respondent denied that the petitioner requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation contending that the petitioner has not given any reason for his return to India or his planning to settle in India. Furthermore, it is unbelievable that petitioner would settle in India at such a late stage where none of his family members is there. According to the respo