JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur on a petition filed under Section 13 -B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'Punjab Rent Act') ordering the eviction of the tenant-Petitioners from the demised premises.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the landlord-Respondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 -B of the Punjab Rent Act for eviction of the tenant-Petitioners from the demised premises which is a shop. It was averred in the ejectment petition that the landlord-Respondent was originally a resident of Village Fateh Nangal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and he migrated to Canada in the year 2002 along with his family and thereafter he was employed in the City of Edmonton in Canada. The ejectment petition was filed on the ground that the landlord-Respondent was a NRI settled in Canada along with his family and that he became the owner of the demised premises in the year 1987. Previously his father was the owner of the demised premises and on his demise in the year 1987, he became the owner. It was further averred that the landlord-Respondent returned to India with the intention to settle down and that the demised premises were required for his use and occupation and for use and occupation of his son, who was dependent upon him. It was further averred that the father of the landlord-Respondent, Hazara Singh, constructed a building in the year 1945 which was later converted into 11 shops. 6 out of the 11 shops fell to the share of the landlord-Respondent and the remaining fell to the share of his brother, Gurdial Singh. It was further averred that the shops are part of one building and were stated to have been let out to separate tenants. Out of 6 shops, one shop was stated to be in possession of the landlord-Respondent and the remaining 5 shops were required by the landlord-Respondent for opening a mall. It was further averred that qua the remaining 4 shops also ejectment petitions had been filed. Upon notice, the tenant-Petitioner appeared and filed his reply stating therein that earlier also the landlord-Respondent No.1 along with his brother filed a petition for ejectment of the tenant-Petitioner from the demised premises and he was ordered to be evicted. However, an appeal was filed by the tenant-Petitioner which was allowed on 18.04.1994. It was further averred that the landlord-Respondent No.1 had intentionally concealed the fact that he owned a plot measuring about 4 kanals situated on GT Road within the Municipal Limits of Dhariwal which was ideal for constructing a mall. It was also averred that 2 shops had earlier been sold by the landlord-Respondent No.1.

3. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on the record, the Rent Controller held that the demised premises were required by the landlord-Respondent No.1 for his personal use and occupation and that of his son and the tenant-Petitioner was directed to vacate the demised premises within a period of one month. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. On 29.01.2015 the following order was passed :

"Heard.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent/landlord, a Canadian Citizen, has filed petition seeking ejectment of revision Petitioner(s) from demised premises claiming himself to be a Non Resident Indian. The leave to contest was declined to the revision Petitioner by the Rent Controller relying upon the plea of Respondent that h