Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.@mdashPursuant to an application filed by the landlord u/s 13B of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,
1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the shop (situated on Dhangu Road, Pathankot, detailed and
described in the title of the impugned order dated 01.02.2012), the Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the tenant, which has brought the tenant
in this Court, invoking civil revisional jurisdiction.
2. The ejectment of petition was preferred by the landlord invoking special provisions of Section 13B of the Act. It is claimed by the tenant i.e. the
petitioner herein that the landlord had neither come to India nor had legally authorized his brother Sunil Sachdeva and mother Mrs. Aggya Wanti to
file the ejectment petition. It is averred that signatures of the applicants/petitioners/landlords Ravinder Sachdeva and Manoj Sachdeva are forged.
It is averred that there is no proper and legal attorney of Ravinder Sachdeva and Manoj Sachdeva-applicants in favour of Sunil Sachdeva. It is
claimed that mutual settlement of the respondents-landlords is fake transaction merely brought into existence for the purpose of thwarting the claim
of the petitioner-tenant. It is also urged that two premises have already been got vacated by the landlord and the shop in question even though is
separate and distinct from the said two premises and also does not form part of the same building, even then it is sought to be vacated under
special provision of Section 13B of the Act. Claiming the impugned order of the Rent Controller to have been passed illegally, acceptance of the
revision petition has been sought.
3. Strong objections were taken by the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Controller by way of leave to defend challenging the petition. It was
allowed. The petition was taken for adjudication. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce oral as well as documentary evidence
considering which the Rent Controller had come to a firm finding against the tenant and ejectment order was passed against him.
4. When several objections questioning correctness of the ejectment order against him as mentioned earlier have been raised by the tenant,
contention of the counsel for respondents is that there is nothing to impugn validity and legality of the order of ejectment against the petitioner-
tenant.
5. Counsel for the parties have been heard, while going through the impugned judgment, grounds of revision and other facts as also circumstances
becoming available while perusing the paper book.
6. Provision of Section 13B in the Act was specially introduced therein to provide for an expeditious mode of recovery of possession of the
building of a Non Resident Indian by him for settling back in India.
7. This provision is available for such an NRI who on account of his bonafide needs is entitled to recover immediate possession from his tenants on
such building provided he is owner of such a building for the last for 5 years at least. For his bonafide need, such an NRI has to show his intention
to come to India and is required to prove the conditions stipulated in Section 13B to be successful in his venture of getting vacant possession of the
premises.
8. Concedingly, Ram Lal Sachedva was the original owner of the building. He executed a Will dated 14.02.1984, it was registered on
17.02.1984. He bequeathed this property in favour of his wife Smt. Aggya Wanti, four sons Ravinder Sachdeva, Sunil Sachdeva, Manoj
Sachdeva, Pradeep Sachdeva and also his grandson Sandeep Sachdeva. His fifth son Vijay Sachdeva and three daughters were disinherited by
him.
9. During his lifetime said Ram Lal Sachdeva had rented out the premises forming part of the said building to the respondent. After the death of
Ram Lal Sachdeva, author of the Will hereinbefore mentioned, pursuant to a mutual settlement agreed to among beneficiaries of the Will, these
premises interalia came to the share of the respondent-landlords and they agreed to file a petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant u/s 13B of
the Act. It was filed on 10.03.2003. The plea of the petitioner-tenant is that the premises in dispute had neither come to the share of the landlord
vide the Will nor any mutual settlement was arrived at among them.
10. Counsel for the petitioner has further urged that two premises out of the same building have already been ordered to be vacated in favour of
respondent-landlord and this shop being not part of the said building, but forming part of another building, does not give any right to the
respondent-landlord to get the same vacated u/s 13B of the Act, wherein premises of only one building could be got vacated.
11. A tenant has no right to challenge family partition or mutual settlement among the co-owners is a proportion of no legal debate. Reference may
be made to Vijay Kumar Vs. Sushil Kumar and Others,
12. There is no dispute that resort to vacation of premises only of one building irrespective of number of the tenants therein can be made in terms
of provisions of Section 13B read with Section 2(dd) of the Act. Unit is the building and not the premises. There may be multiple premises with
multiple tenants but the building sought to be vacated is required to be one.
13. The petitioner-tenant to prove his plea that the shop in question does not form part of the same building from where the tenants viz. Allahabad
Bank and National Insurance Company had already been evicted had examined Vipan Kumar Nanda as RW1 but in his cross-examination
affected by the respondent-landlord, he has categorically admitted that the shop in dispute under tenancy of the petitioner-tenant is in the same
building in which Allahabad Bank and National Insurance Company had their offices and have suffered eviction at the hands of the respondent-
landlord.
14. Even, when Anil Kumar for the petitioner-tenant has entered the witness box as RW2, he has conceded that Ram Lal was earlier owner of the
entire building and the landlords are his sons. Even his witness Rajesh Kumar RW4 failed to prove that the shop in dispute is located in some other
building. Site plans Ex. A-4 and Ex. R-7 reveal existence of the shop in dispute in the same building, where Allahabad Bank and National
Insurance Company had their branches.
15. Thus location of the shop is established to be in one building from where other tenants under special provisions of Section 13B of the Act have
suffered eviction. Since right of eviction available to a specified landlord u/s 13B is restricted to a building which may even have multiple tenants
there is no doubt that the respondent-landlords are within their statutory rights to claim eviction of the present premises in terms of the Section 13B
of the Act notwithstanding the fact that they have already got their tenants i.e. Allahabad Bank and National Insurance Company evicted from the
building in question.
16. Merely because respondent-landlords have their attorney, does not disentitle them from resorting to provisions of Section 13B of the Act,
when they are covered under the provisions of Section 2(dd) of the Act explaining the term NRI so far as it relates to the provisions of Section
13B of the Act. There is nothing to show that the respondent-landlords-owners lack any of the qualifications mentioned in Section 2(dd) as are
relatable to the provisions of Section 13B of the Act.
17. Similarly, there is nothing brought on record or in evidence by the petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlords-owners have suffered any
disability to invoke the provision of Section 13B of the Act. Sunil Sachdeva appearing as AW1 for and on behalf of the respondent-landlord-cum-
owners has abundantly brought on record by way of his testimony that respondents are Non-Residential Indians and being owners of the building
for the last 5 years are within their right to invoke the provisions of Section 13B of the Act. This building locates the premises in dispute. The
respondents are owners for the last more than 5 years and have bonafide requirement of the premises for which they are returning to India and are
to use the same for themselves.
18. As far as claim of the petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlords would not use the premises and that the petition is malafide, is concerned,
it is entirely baseless apprehension unsupported by any material or evidence on record. In any case, there is a statutory protection provided to a
hitherto tenant as he has a right of restoration of possession in terms of Section 13B of the Act, in case of any default is made by the respondent-
landlord in entering to the premises.
19. In view of the well written impugned order of the Rent Controller, there is no merit in the petition. Affirming the order of the Rent Controller,
the revision petition is dismissed.