The inheritance of the property from the deceased father vested ownership in the respondents, and the opening of succession after the father's death did not affect their right to seek eviction as NRIs.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja J. - By way of present revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.01.2015, whereby an application for grant of leave to defend filed on their behalf has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar.

2. Facts leading to the present petition are that a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was filed by respondents No.1 to 3 regarding tenanted premises being portion of property No. ER-40, Hind Samachar Street, Near PNB Chowk, Jalandhar, also having Municipal No. B-IX-1/249/4, known as Sudama Niwas, Pucca Bagh, Jalandhar City. In the said petition, landlord-respondents No.1 to 3 sought eviction on the ground of their personal necessities, stating that they normally visit India but have no permanent place to live, as such, require the premises in question alongwith Ist floor for their personal use and occupation for residence.

3. An application for leave to contest was filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking permission to contest eviction petition inter-alia on the following grounds:-

(i) Previously, an eviction petition was filed at the instance of parents of respondents No.1 to 3, which got dismissed in default on 04.08.2009, the same was never got restored either by the parents or by respondents No.1 to 3, as such fresh petition was not maintainable;

(ii) earlier two eviction petitions were filed by the parents of respondents No.1 to 3 against two others tenants, to whom leave to contest was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 17.07.2008;

(iii) the petitioners could not invoke Section 13-B of the Act as they are not owners of the premises for the last 5 years prior to the institution of the eviction petition in the year 2011 having inherited the property after the death of their father, somewhere in the year 2009.

4. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed their reply to the application moved by present petitioners. Vide impugned order dated 17.01.2015, the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, dismissed the same, declining them the liberty of leave to defend.

5. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 17.01.2015, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates the grounds taken in the application for leave to contest and submits that once the parents of landlord- respondents No.1 to 3 filed eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act, which was got dismissed in default, no fresh petition could have been and that they were entitled for restoration of the petition previously filed at the instance of their parents. He further submits that once, the father of respondents No.1 to 3 expired in 2009, they cannot be said to have fulfilled the basic ingredient of Section 13-B of the Act, which requires the landlord to be the owner of tenanted premises for a period of preceding 5 years as on the date of filing of eviction petition. He also relies upon order dated 17.07.2008, whereby leave to contest was granted in favour of two other tenants.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 argues that the dismissal of previous petition filed at the instance of their parents would not be a bar for invoking Section 13-B of the Act, as the previous petition was never decided on merits. He also contends that as the property has been inherited by way of natural succession from the parents deceased father who himself happened to be an NRI, the inheritance shall continue without disruption even for the purpose of Section 13-B of the Act.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records of the case, I find that the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar did not commit any error on facts and law while declining the prayer made by the petitioners for leave to defend. The previous eviction petition filed at the instance of parents of respondents No.1 to 3 was never decided on merits as it was merely dismissed in default, the benefit under Section 13-B of the Act c