JUDGMENT :

Gurbir Singh, J.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 24.04.2006, passed by learned Rent Controller, Garhshankar, whereby the ejectment of tenant-petitioner has been ordered under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as - the Act).

2. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for proper adjudication of the present revision petition, are that respondent no.1 Sudesh Kumari (respondent no.1 herein) filed petition under Section 13-B of the Act for immediate possession by way of ejectment of the petitioner from the shop marked as ABCD, situated in Khasra No.482, as detailed in head note of the plaint.

3. It was submitted in the petition by Sudesh Kumari that she, along with Prem Wati, Promila Kumari and Raghubans Lal, was the co-owner/ landlady of the aforesaid shop, vide sale deed dated 13.12.1985 and the petitioner was tenant in the said shop @ Rs.20/- per month for the last more than 40 years. It was further averred by landlady Sudesh Kumari that she, being NRI, returned to India on 01.12.2003. On her return, she needed the shop in question for personal use and was entitled to get its immediate possession under the relevant provisions of the Act. It was brought to the knowledge of the learned Rent Controller in the present petition that earlier also, Rent Petition No.18 of 18.09.1996 was filed by Sudesh Kumari along with other co-owners against the tenant on the other grounds, under Section 13 of the Act, which was dismissed on 29.04.2002 and appeal against the same was pending before learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. In that petition, it was duly held that Sudesh Kumari was one of the co-owners of the shop in dispute and the said shop was situated in Khasra No.482.

4. Upon notice of the present petition by learned Rent Controller, the tenant (petitioner herein) filed his reply while taking preliminary objections and contending that Sudesh Kumari had no locus standi to file the petition as she was not owner of the shop in question. The said shop does not bear Khasra No.482. The sale deed dated 13.12.1986 (or 1985) produced on record was executed by one Balbir Sen and it was not related to the shop in question. Even said Balbir Sen was never owner of the disputed shop. The whole of the shop is not tenanted property but only portion marked as BCDE is the shop and tenanted premises with the tenant. In fact, one Raj Dulari was owner of the said shop marked as BCDE and it was she, who inducted the petitioner as tenant in the said shop about 39-40 years ago. The site beneath the verandah ABEF as shown in site plan, at that time, was a vacant space in front of the shop and was not the ownership of Raj Dulari. The petitioner even asked Raj Dulari about having any objection if he would construct a shop over that space in order to utilize it by spending his own money, to which she replied that she had no objection to the same as it was not her ownership. So, initially, the petitioner constructed a shed and then, constructed a pucca verandah in front of the rented shop by spending money from his own pocket. The said verandah ABEF in the site plan was neither a part of the shop in question nor of rented premises. The aforesaid Balbir Sen was never owner of the shop in question. In fact, Balbir Sen and Raj Dulari were exclusive owners of separate properties. At the time of tenancy of the petitioner, Balbir Sen was treating himself as exclusive owner of the shop marked as 'N' and site beneath the shops 'L' and 'M', whereas Raj Dulari was treating herself as exclusive owner of the demised shop and the shop existing at the site marked as 'P'.

5. After some time, respondents Sudesh Kumari and Promila Kumari started declaring themselves to be owners of the shop marked 'N' and the site beneath shops 'L' and 'M', alleging that they both constructed shops 'L' and 'M' but never made any claim qua those shops. It was further contended that Raj Dulari