Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.@mdashThis order shall dispose of four revision petitions bearing CR-1816-2009 titled as ''Parshotam Bhanot v. Hardeep Singh'', CR-1817-2009 titled as ''Rajiv Kumar v. Hardeep Singh'', CR-1818-2009 titled as ''Gurdev Singh v. Gurdeep Singh'' and CR-1819-2009 titled as ''Sukhwinder Singh v. Gurdeep Singh''. Out of 4 eviction petitions, two have been filed by Hardeep Singh and two by his brother Gurdeep Singh, who both are NRIs. All the eviction petitions have been filed u/s 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] in which the tenants have filed applications u/s 18-A(4) of the Act for seeking leave to defend, which have been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has argued that one Faqir Singh was the owner of the demised premises. He had left behind 3 sons, 3 daughters and a widow. On the basis of the alleged oral family settlement, the demised premises has been given to the present respondents so that they could be useful in filing a petition u/s 13B of the Act to seek eviction of the petitioners in summary proceedings. He has primarily made two submissions; firstly, that the oral family settlement cannot be believed in the absence of there being its reflection in the record of rights and secondly, by way of an application bearing CM-17059-CII-2010, the petitioner(s) have sought permission to place on record subsequent events allegedly occurred during the pendency of the eviction proceedings regarding huge property purchased by the landlord Gurdeep Singh in the name of his mother Surjit Kaur by registered conveyance deed dated 12.12.2008 and that they do not have any bona fide necessity because of having a vacant 7 Marias property in the same vicinity. It is also averred that in the same area where the demised premises is situated, i.e. Maksudan, Hardeep Singh has become the owner of land measuring 40'' x 80'' through his other mother Smt. Parsin Kaur. It is alleged that the said fact has been actively concealed by the landlords in the eviction petition and a misstatement has been made in para No. 13 thereof. In this regard, he has referred to an affidavit dated 06.01.2010 and the statement of Surjit Kaur which are attached as Annexures P-6 and P-7 with the aforesaid application. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has also argued that respondents have not filed any reply to the aforesaid application, therefore, all the facts pleaded therein are deemed to have been admitted.
3. In reply, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the oral family settlement. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Narinder Kumar Shiv Kumar Dhawan v. Sunita Chopra, 2007(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 233. He has also submitted that even if the said application has not been replied in writing, it would not tantamount to admission on the part of the respondents-landlords because the application is only for the purpose of placing on record the documents and no prayer has been made for leading additional evidence. Moreover, the said application was never allowed by this Court and was only ordered to be heard with the main case vide order dated 03.08.2010. It is further submitted that the sale deed Annexure P-5 attached with the application is not in favour of Hardeep Singh and is in favour of Surjit Kaur. Moreover, there is no effect insofar as the affidavit Annexure P-6 is concerned because the eviction petition was filed on 24.01.2008 and Parsin Kaur had died on 10.12.2009, therefore, it cannot be even imagined that there was any concealment of fact on the part of the respondents because they would get the property of Parsin Kaur only after her death which took place during the pendency of the eviction petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that even if the landlords had got the property of Parsin Kaur, it would not improve the case of the tenants because if an NRI landlord has got more than one properties, it is his choice to get the one building vacated by moving an application u/s 13B of the Act. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of M/s Bhandari General Store and another v. Makhan Singh Grewal, 2006 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 306. It is admitted by both the learned counsel for the parties that the decision in the aforesaid case of M/s Bhandari General Store and another''s case (supra) has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments, though not admitted, that the oral family settlement is not legal, even then the respondents can file the eviction petition being co-owners to the extent of 1/7th share in the demised property. He has submitted that an NRI landlord being a co-owner is entitled to file an eviction petition u/s 13B of the Act and the consent of the other co-owners is presumed until and unless it is shown that the other co-owners are not agreeable to eject the tenants or that the ejectment application has been filed without their consent. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ravinder Pal Mohindra v. Gurbachan Singh and others, 2006(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 211.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Insofar as the first question raised by learned counsel the petitioners is concerned, although it has been held in M/s. Narinder Kumar Shiv Kumar Dhawan''s case (supra) that a partition of property by oral settlement is valid and need not be reduced into writing, yet it is also equally true that the oral family settlement has to be acted upon and must be reflected in the record of rights. However, the respondents-landlords are admittedly the sons of Faqir Singh who was the owner of the demised premises and died intestate. Accordingly, the respondents-landlords have become the owners of 1/7th share of his entire property. In view of the decision of this Court in Ravinder Pal Mohindra''s case (supra), they are capable to file application u/s 13B of the Act as a co-owner to seek eviction of the tenant and the consent of the other co-owners is presumed until and unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to evict the tenant, but nothing has been brought on record in this regard by the petitioners that the other co-owners were not agreeable. It was specifically pleaded in para Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the eviction petition that the respondents-landlords are owners of the disputed property to the extent of 1/7th share. Thus, I do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners on the first issue.
7. In respect of the second question that the respondents have got property during the pendency of the eviction petition which has been tried to be projected through CM-17059-CII-2010, I am of the view that Annexure P-5 does not relate to the respondents and Annexures P-6 and P-7, which have come into existence during the pendency of the eviction petition, are not at all an act of concealment on their part. Moreover, in view of the decision of this Court in M/s. Bhandari General Store and another''s case (supra) the landlords are entitled to seek vacation of any of the property of their choice but the application u/s 13B of the Act can be filed only once.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in all the revision petitions, which have been filed by the tenants against the order by which their applications for leave to defend have been declined, and the same are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.
