IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-10-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.01.2025 Akaljot Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gulshan Rai ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 27.03.2018 vide which the Rent Controller had partly allowed the petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 1949 Act”) for the ejectment of the present petitioner from the shop in question. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioner was also dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the rent petition which had been filed is not stricto sensu under the provisions of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, inasmuch as, other pleas in addition to the pleas which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of a petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act have also been raised. It is submitted that a plea with respect to the present petitioner not paying the arrears of rent had been raised by the respondent and with respect to the same, specific issue i.e., issue No.1 was framed by the Rent Controller and under the said issue, the assessment order dated 15.01.2018 was passed and the rent was tendered by the petitioner which was accepted by the respondent on 25.01.2018. It is submitted that in a petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, the respondent could not have claimed the arrears of rent and the said plea was taken to misguide the Rent Controller and on the said ground alone, the impugned judgments passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority deserve to be set aside and the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act deserves to be rejected.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned orders are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.

4. Although, the petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act has not been annexed along with present revision petition but a perusal of the impugned orders would show that the respondent had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act for ejectment from the shop in question which was stated to be under the tenancy of the present petitioner. The Rent Controller vide order dated 27.03.2018, had partly allowed the said petition and had directed the present petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute and to hand over the possession of the shop within a period of two months.

5. An appeal filed by the present petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.10.2024. The Appellate Authority, on the basis of the revenue record including the jamabandis came to the conclusion that respondent along with his brother Kamal Krishan were the owner/co-owners of the property in question. It was further observed that the respondent was a Non-Resident Indian as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Punjab Act 9 of 2001 and was residing in Italy for the last more than 2 ½ decades and was also a person of Indian origin and for the said purpose, passport Ex.PB and registration certificate Ex.PC were taken into consideration. Even with respect to respondent having the locus standi to file a petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, it was observed that from the documents on record as well as the evidence, it was apparent that the respondent was the landlord of the premises in question and was also a co-owner and was thus, entitled to seek ejectment. In support of its observations, the First Appellate Court had relied upon the judgments passed in the cases titled as Deepak Maini Vs. Amrik Singh Khatkar reported as 2011(3) RCR (Civil