IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 01, 2025 NARESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER ........Petitioners Versus SOLINDER RAM ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 06.08.2008 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby an application filed under Section 18(A) 4 & 5 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1949 Act’) seeking leave to defend, filed at the instance of petitioners-tenants stands declined thereby directing eviction against them from the residential portion of Kothi No.580, Model Town Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘demised premises’).

2. Briefly stating, while claiming himself to be co-owner of Kothi No.580, Model Town, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the building’) for the past more than five years and pleading himself to be Non-Resident Indian; presently residing in England, respondent-

landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioners-tenants from the demised premises for personal need; having invoked Section 13-B of 1949 Act. It was pleaded that the respondent–landlord and other co- owners of the building intend to come to India with their future generations and stay there.

3. Upon notice, an application under Section 18(A) (4) and (5) of the 1949 Act came to be filed at the instance of petitioners-tenants seeking leave to contest the eviction petition. Reply to the aforesaid application was filed at the instance of respondent-landlord objecting the grant of leave to contest prayed for by the petitioners-tenants. Learned Rent Controller vide its decision dated 06.08.2008 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-tenants and denied the right of leave to defend thereby, resulting into passing of an order of eviction against them; hence the present revision petition.

4. Impugning the order dated 06.08.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants vehemently submits that leave to contest was required to be granted for the following reasons:-

(a) Other properties owned by the respondent-landlord in the same urban area i.e Jalandhar were never disclosed by him in the eviction petition which caused serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioners-tenants.

(b) The respondent-landlord happened to be co-owner of property No. WX-70,Basti Nav Jalandhar, measuring 31 kanals 6 marlas regarding which an eviction petition was preferred by his other co-owners against tenants therein while invoking Section 13(B) of the 1949 Act and thus, the petitioners-tenants in his own independent right could not have filed the present eviction petition qua the demised premises as any such preferential right was available during his lifetime for seeking vacation of one building, only and the same already stood availed by the petitioner through his co-owner.

(c) Four other eviction petitions invoking Section 13(B) of 1949 Act regarding 4 shops forming part of building in question i.e. Kothi No.580, Model Town, Jalandhar were filed at the instance of respondent-landlord, as such, he was not entitled to invoke his rights under the same provision, qua the demised premises i.e. the residential portion.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants places reliance upon judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of “Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh” reported as “2000(2) RCJ 655”, “Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini” reported as “2005(2) RCJ 110”, and “Nelson Christopher Vs. Pritam Singh” reported as “2010(1) PLR 311” besides referring to the following cases in support of his submissions:-

(i) “Harbhajan Singh Vs. Sukhjinder Singh Aulak @ Billa and Anr.” repo