The limitations and entitlements outlined in Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, regarding the recovery of immediate possession by a non-resident Indian owner, and the scope of interference under Section 18(8) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.(Oral) - The petitioner herein has filed two revision petitions. In Civil Revision No.2045 of 2014, he assails the correctness of the order passed by the Rent Controller refusing him leave to contest the petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1949 Act'). Whereas, in Civil Revision No.2046 of 2014, he questions the correctness of the consequential order of his ejectment.

2. Under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, a non resident Indian owner can pray to recover immediate possession of one building during his lifetime. This is an opportunity granted to the Non Resident Indian (NRI) to recover the immediate possession under the special provision. Section 18-A of the 1949 Act provides that the tenant shall be entitled to apply for leave to contest a petition filed under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. It makes out a strong ground which would ultimately disentitle the owner from getting the order of eviction. In the present case, the tenancy commenced on 15.03.1954. The petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act was filed in the year 2011.

3. This Bench has heard the learned counsels representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

4. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner contends that the respondent no.1 was co-owner to the extent of 1/8th share and since there is a preliminary decree of partition for partitioning the shop, therefore, he has no right to maintain the petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act as the petitioner herein is the tenant of the complete shop not the 1/8th share. He in support of his argument relies upon the judgment passed in Ventaka Reddy and others vs. Pethi Reddy, 1963 AIR (Supreme Court) 992. The learned senior counsel further contends that the tenant while filing the application for leave to contest made out a strong ground for grant of leave to contest as the respondent owns various other properties.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing respondent no.1 submits that a preliminary decree does not result in the complete division of the property by metes and bounds. He submits that no final decree for partition has yet been passed. While relying upon the judgment passed in Kewal Krishan vs. Mohan Singh, 2006 (2) R.C.R.(Civil) 442, he contends that a preliminary decree will not result in separation of shop between the co-owners. He further contends that the respondent while filing the petition disclosed various other properties which are in the occupation of various other tenants but the property in question is most suitable for his needs.

6. This Court has analyzed, evaluated and appreciated the arguments of the learned counsels representing the parties.

7. A preliminary decree for partition of the joint property determines the respective shares of the various co-owners. Such preliminary decree is required to be followed by a final decree in which the joint property is divided by metes and bounds. A preliminary decree is only a step towards the passing of a final decree. The preliminary decree is only final to the extent of declaring the respective shares to which the each cosharer is entitled to.

8. This court has carefully read the judgment passed in Ventaka Reddy and others (supra). In para 1, the Court framed question which required adjudication. In this particular case, the Court was considering the meaning to be given to the expression final decision existing in the first proviso to Section 28 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.

9. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner relies upon the observations made in para 6, to contend that a preliminary decree passed in a partition suit is not a tentative decree. No doubt, the aforesaid statement of law is correct, however, a preliminary decree is conclusive only as regards the declaration of respective shares of the co-owners. At the time of passing the final decree, the Court