IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CR-357-2025 Date of decision : 28.01.2025 Gurmeet Singh and another ... Petitioners Versus Pardeep Singh Bhangu and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate, Mr.Minkal Rawal, Advocate, Mr.Abhinav Goel, Advocate and Mr.Arjun Sangwan, Advocate for the caveator-respondent no.1.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

INDEX Paragraphs Pages

1 Challenge in the revision petition 1 1 to 2

2 Brief facts of the case 2 2 Grounds of challenge raised on behalf of the 2 to 3

3 petitioners 3 Analysis and finding regarding Ist Ground- (i) 4 to 9 3 to 8

4 The respondent no.1-landlord is not an NRI Analysis and finding regarding IInd and IIIrd 10 to 19 8 to 17 Grounds -(ii) The respondent no.1-landlord is not the owner of the entire property and is only owner upto the extent of 25% and thus, is not entitled to seek eviction.

(iii) There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the

5 respondent no.1.

Analysis and finding regarding IVth Ground- 20 to 25 17 to 21 (iv) The requirement projected by the

6 respondent no.1 is not bonafide.

CHALLENGE IN THE REVISION PETITION

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 20.11.2024 vide which the application filed by the present petitioners for leave to contest the petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh vide notification dated 09.10.2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been dismissed and the eviction petition filed by the respondent no.1-landlord (hereinafter referred to as “the landlord”) under Section 13-B of the Act for the eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to vacate one room with common bathroom on the ground floor of House no.3638, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh, within a period of two months from the passing of the judgment dated 20.11.2024.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act for the eviction of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as “the tenants”) from the premises in question which comprised of one room with common bathroom on the ground floor of House No.3638, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh. In the said case, an application under Section 18-A (4 & 5) of the Act seeking leave to defend was filed by the tenants. A detailed reply dated 09.09.2024 was filed to the said application and as has been stated hereinabove, the Rent Controller after considering the arguments, had dismissed the application seeking leave to contest and had passed the order of eviction.

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITONERS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants has raised four grounds to challenge the impugned order and each of the said ground has been dealt with separately by this Court hereinafter. The grounds of challenge are enumerated hereinbelow:-

i) The respondent no.1-landlord is not an NRI.

ii) The respondent no.1-landlord is not the owner of the entire property and is only owner upto the extent of 25% and thus, is not entitled to seek eviction.

iii) There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent no.1.

iv) The requirement projected by the respondent no.1 is not bonafide.

ANALYSIS AND FINDING REGARDING Ist GROUND i) The respondent no.1-landlord is not an NRI.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the passport (Annexure P-1) to highlight that in the said passport there is no stamp to prove that the respondent no.1 had gone abroad much less to Canada and thus, it is not prima-facie proved that the respondent no.1 has been residing in Canada. It is submitted that said passport had been issued on 02.11.2023 whereas the present petition has been filed on 18.05.2024. It is submitted t