JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 18.05.2011 vide which the application for grant of leave to contest filed by the petitioners had been dismissed on various grounds including the ground of the same having not been filed within a period of 15 days and the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1949') had been allowed and the petitioners had been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question within a period of two months from the date of the order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady was not bona fide and the said plea had been raised in the application for leave to contest. It is further submitted that the said plea had not been appropriately considered by the Rent Controller. It is stated that the respondent-landlady was one of the co-owners and a co-owner alone cannot file eviction under Section 13-B of the Act of 1949. It is stated that the objections raised in the application for leave to contest were meritorious and raised debatable issues and thus, the leave to contest should have been allowed and the impugned order rejecting the said application for leave to contest deserves to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that in the present case, the application for leave to contest was not filed within 15 days of service, inasmuch as, the petitioners were served on 02.09.2007, whereas, the leave to contest had been filed on 19.10.2007 (Annexure P-2) and the same having been filed beyond the statutory period of 15 days and even no application for condonation of delay had been filed and thus, on the said ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be upheld. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as 'Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi', reported as 2010(9) SCC 183. It is further submitted that it is a matter of settled law that every co-owner can file the eviction petition and the Rent Controller has rightly rejected the said ground. It is further submitted the present petition which has been filed is bona fide and as per settled law, the need of landlady is presumed to be genuine, as pleaded in the eviction petition, and the said presumption can only be rebutted by strong and cogent evidence and not on a mere oral case of the petitioners. It is stated that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book and is of the opinion that the impugned judgment is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. The respondent-landlady had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Act of 1949 on 16.07.2007 with respect to eviction from the shop in question on the plea that the respondent-landlady was a NRI and was also a co-owner/landlady of the property in question. It was stated that the present petitioners were inducted by the respondent and her husband through their attorney on 15.08.1988 and thus, there was a relationship of the landlady and tenant between the parties. The facts that the respondent-landlady was NRI were detailed in paras 6 and 7(i) of the eviction petition. It was further pleaded that the respondent-landlady bona-fide required the tenanted premises for personal use and occupation in order to start the business. The details of bona-fide requirement, which have been mentioned in para 7(i) of the eviction petition, are reproduced herein below: -

'That the respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute which has been shown as red in the site plan attached on the following ground:-

The petitioner has sufficient balance in her possession in orde