CR No. 2832 of 2016 (O & M) with

CR No. 2833 of 2016 (O & M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

212

*****

1. CR No. 2832 of 2016 (O & M)

Date of Decision : 27.2.2023

Harbinder Singh Manku

...... Petitioner

Versus

Sanjay Kumar

...... Respondent

2. CR No. 2833 of 2016 (O & M)

Harbinder Singh Manku

...... Petitioner

Versus

Arun Kumar

...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present :

Mr. Uday Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner

Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate, for the respondent

(in CR No. 2833 of 2016)

Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent

(in CR No. 2832 of 2016)

---

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

By this order the aforesaid two revision petitions are being

decided, since these have been filed by the same landlord, on same grounds

concerning there adjacent shops against the identical orders dated 15.1.2016,

vide which two rent petitions, bearing Rent Case No. 7 dated 26.7.2012 and

Rent Case No. 4 dated 26.7.2012, filed on same grounds under Section 13-B of

the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Act of 1949’) were dismissed by the Rent Controller. The facts are being taken

ASHWANI KUMAR

2023.02.27 16:25

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No. 2832 of 2016 (O & M) with

CR No. 2833 of 2016 (O & M)

2

from CR No. 2832 of 2016.

2.

The facts of the case in brief are, the petitioner/landlord

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the landlord’) being a Non-Resident Indian (NRI),

on returning to India filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act of 1949,

for eviction of the respondent/tenant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenant’)

from the shops in question. He claimed that his father Mohan Singh, being

owner of the shops in question, along with other property falling on the

backside of the shop, situated in revenue estate of Village Sutheri, near Hotel

Maharaja, Hoshiarpur, had executed a registered Will dated 29.1.1980 in favour

of his sons. His father expired on 28.3.1983. Thereupon, the petitioner along

with his brothers inherited the estate of their father and became owners. The

other co-sharers have no objection to filing of the eviction petitions and have

consented to the same. It has further been pleaded that there are seven shops

owned by the petitioner and his brothers, out of which two shops are in

possession of the tenant herein, and other shops are in possession of other

tenants, against whom separate ejectment petitions have been filed. Other

property belonging to the petitioner and his brothers is at the rear of the shop,

where a Saw mill is being run. They do not own or possess any other shop, nor

have they vacated any such shop without any sufficient cause after enactment of

the Act of 1949. On returning to India, the petitioner wanted to start his

business of sale and manufacturing of wooden furniture by converting all the

shops into a big showroom, and also sale of hardware items by opening

Hardware Store.

3.

The tenant filed written statement stating that Mohan Singh, the

landlord’s father, was not owner of the property in dispute as alleged.

Execution of the Will dated 29.1.1980 (Ex.P/8) by Mohan Singh was also

ASHWANI KUMAR

2023.02.27 16:25

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No. 2832 of 2016 (O & M) with

CR No. 2833 of 2016 (O & M)

3

denied, as also the fact that the petitioner was co-sharer in respect of the shops

in question. The land underneath the shops which are in tenant’s possession,

bearing no. 5 and 6, is owned by Gurmit Singh Manku, who got the shops

constructed after getting the site plan sanctioned. After Gurmit Singh’s death,

shops no. 5 and 6 were leased out to tenants by his widow Balbir Kaur. Shop

no. 6 was leased out vide rent note dated 12.3.1993, and sh