IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2643-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 02.07.2025 M/s Brij Lal Dhari Lal & Sons and others ...Petitioners Versus Dev Raj Bhandari and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CM-11346-CII-2025

1. This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for restoration of the case and recalling of order dated 01.05.2025.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated

01.05.2025 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number.

Main case

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Court of Rent Controller, Khanna whereby the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1949”) for ejectment of the petitioners from the shop in question had been allowed.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed an ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act of 1949 for ejectment of the petitioners from the shop in question shown as red in the site plan attached to the petition situated on the ground floor bounded as under:-

“East- Shop of M/s Ganda Mal Mool Raj West- Public Medical Hall North- G.T. Road South- Godown of M/s Ganda Mal Mool Raj situated at G.T. Road, Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana”

3. It was the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that Mool Raj, who was father of respondent No.1, was owner of the property in question and after the death of the said Mool Raj, his sons including Dev Raj Bhandari (respondent No.1) had inherited the same and he along with other brothers had become the owners of the property in question. It was also the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that respondent No.1 was born in India and was of Indian Origin and had been settled in the United States of America since many years and that he along with his other brothers/partners was co- owner/co-landlord and required the shop in question for carrying on his business. Other averments were also made in the eviction petition.

4. After grant of leave to contest, the petitioners filed their written statement opposing the eviction petition. Rejoinder was also filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and on 16.10.2024, the Rent Controller was pleased to frame the following issues:-

“1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for ejectment under section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent restrictions Act as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the petitioner requires the tenancy premises for bonafide use and occupation?OPP

3. Whether the present petition of the petitioner is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition?OPD

5. Relief.”

5. The Rent Controller, vide its detailed judgment dated 17.03.2025 allowed the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act of 1949 and directed the present petitioners to vacate and hand over the shop in question to respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a period of two months from the date of the order. While passing the said order, the entire evidence and documents on record were duly considered. It was held that respondent No.1 was covered under the definition of “Non Resident Indian” as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act of 1949. The said finding was given after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, reported as (2005) 12 SCC 778 and other judgments. The question raised on behalf of the tenants to the effect as to whether a co-sharer could seek ejectment of the tenant without impleading the other co-sharers was answered in favour of the landlord by taking into consideration various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The important issue as