CR-8167- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Iqbal Singh Barjinder Pal Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: HARKESH MANUJA, laid to an order dated Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 4 Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, whereby an application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on behalf of the petitioner/tenant for seeking leave to contest, came to be declined thereby resulting into passing of an e them. -2014 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision: Iqbal Singh VERSUS Barjinder Pal Singh Gill and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the respondents. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid to an order dated 29.09.2014 passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 4/co-owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punj Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, whereby an application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on behalf of the petitioner/tenant for seeking leave to contest, came to be declined thereby resulting into passing of an e IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R-8167-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 ...Petitioner and others ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Divanshu Jain, Advocate Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate By way of present revision petition challenge has been passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punj Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, whereby an application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on behalf of the petitioner/tenant for seeking leave to contest, came to be declined thereby resulting into passing of an eviction order against By way of present revision petition challenge has been passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, whereby an application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on behalf of the petitioner/tenant for seeking leave to contest, came to viction order against SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- 2. consisting of No.83-84, Sector 17 respondent question i.e. SCO No. 83 refered to as the ‘building’). forming part of SCO No. 83 referred to and gradually the rent was increased to Rs.4700/ 1997. Besides it, the following other tenancies were also created about different portions of the building in question: 3. permanently settled in England and running successful business there, the -2014 (O&M) [2] The present dispute relates to the demised premises consisting of half bay of ground floor, measuring 16 ½’ x 40’ 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, respondent No.1 to 4 happen to be co question i.e. SCO No. 83-84, Sector 17 refered to as the ‘building’). Contesting Respondents let out the demised premises forming part of SCO No. 83-84, Sector 17 referred to as ‘demised premises’) to the petitioner and gradually the rent was increased to Rs.4700/ . Besides it, the following other tenancies were also created about different portions of the building in question: (i) Area measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ Rs.26215/- per month; (ii) Portion on the ground floor and basement (back side) rented out to Iqbal Singh; (iii) Portion of 1st Consultants Lim (iv) Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were separately rented out some portion of 3rd floor. Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been permanently settled in England and running successful business there, the contesting respondents invoked The present dispute relates to the demised premises half bay of ground floor, measuring 16 ½’ x 40’ of SCO D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, happen to be co-owners of the building in 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh (hereinafter Respondents let out the demised premises 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, (hereinafter as ‘demised premises’) to the petitioner in the year 1979 and gradually the rent was increased to Rs.4700/- per month in May . Besides it, the following other tenancies were also created about different portions of the building in question:- measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ per month; ortion on the ground floor and basement (back side) rented out to Iqbal Singh; and 2nd rented out to Canam Consultants Limited; Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were separately rented out some portion of 3rd Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been permanently settled in England and running successful business respondents invoked Section 13-B of the 1949 The present dispute relates to the demised premises of SCO D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, owners of the building in D, Chandigarh (hereinafter Respondents let out the demised premises D, Chandigarh, (hereinafter in the year 1979 per month in May . Besides it, the following other tenancies were also created measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ ortion on the ground floor and basement rented out to Canam Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were separately rented out some portion of 3rd Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been permanently settled in England and running successful business B of the 1949 SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- Act, seeking ejectment of petitioner from the demises premises on the ground that the same was required for their personal use and occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the northern region of the country and therein. It was also pleaded that petitions while invoking Section 13 petitioner regarding the demised premises were pending adjudication. It was further pleade the demised premises under a franchise agreement dated 16.03.2009 with petitioner was unauthorized. 4. Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under S (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, inter-alia -2014 (O&M) [3] Act, seeking ejectment of petitioner from the demises premises on the ground that the same was required for their personal use and occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the northern region of the country and also for setting up of an office therein. It was also pleaded that number of other previous eviction petitions while invoking Section 13 petitioner regarding the demised premises were pending adjudication. It was further pleaded that the possession of respondent No.5 over the demised premises under a franchise agreement dated 16.03.2009 with petitioner was unauthorized. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under S (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, alia on the following grounds:- (a) Some portion of building in question was alienated in favour of one Mr.V.K. Awasthy and his son and also to Ms.Harjit Kaur; between 2000 to 2004; (b) Neither the other co question were impleaded in the present eviction petition; nor their consent was ever obtained for the said purpose, especially when Harjit Kaur who happened to be one of the co owner even filed an filing of the present eviction petition against petitioner; Act, seeking ejectment of petitioner from the demises premises on the ground that the same was required for their personal use and occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the also for setting up of an office number of other previous eviction petitions while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act against the petitioner regarding the demised premises were pending adjudication. d that the possession of respondent No.5 over the demised premises under a franchise agreement dated 16.03.2009 with petitioner was unauthorized. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under Section 18A (4) & (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, Some portion of building in question was alienated in favour of one Mr.V.K. Awasthy and his son and also to Ms.Harjit Kaur; etween 2000 to 2004; Neither the other co-owners of the building in question were impleaded in the present eviction petition; nor their consent was ever obtained for the said purpose, especially when Harjit Kaur who happened to be one of the co ven filed an affidavit objecting to the filing of the present eviction petition against Act, seeking ejectment of petitioner from the demises premises on the ground that the same was required for their personal use and occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the also for setting up of an office number of other previous eviction the petitioner regarding the demised premises were pending adjudication. d that the possession of respondent No.5 over the demised premises under a franchise agreement dated Upon notice, the petitioner appeared before the Rent ection 18A (4) & (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, Some portion of building in question was alienated in favour of one Mr.V.K. Awasthy and his son and also to Ms.Harjit Kaur; owners of the building in question were impleaded in the present eviction petition; nor their consent was ever obtained for the said purpose, especially when Harjit Kaur who happened to be one of the co- objecting to the filing of the present eviction petition against SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [4] (c) Petitioner having purchased 1/18 Harjit Kaur and his son Karambir Singh, building in question; tenancy came to an end and as such no been filed against them decree of partition qua the said building was passed in favour of all concerned including petitioner No.1 (d) Respondents recently created a fresh tenancy regarding some portion of building in question in favour of Harjit Singh after having withdrawn an eviction petition filed under Section 13 against him, besides renting out some portion of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj Bala which reflected that their need qua the premises in question was not genuine. Besides it, the respondents were well settled in England and running their business successfully and thus never intended to settle in India. It was also pleaded that even an eviction petition filed against Harjit Singh having invoked withdrawn on 19.07.2012 and a fresh tenancy was created in his favour while increasing the rent. (e) There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the eviction petition by contesting respondents against petitioners was not maintainable. It Petitioner having purchased 1/18th share from and his son Karambir Singh,in the building in question; tenancy came to an end and as such no eviction petition could have been filed against them especially when final decree of partition qua the said building was passed in favour of all concerned including petitioner No.1; Respondents recently created a fresh tenancy regarding some portion of ground floor of the building in question in favour of Harjit Singh after having withdrawn an eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act against him, besides renting out some portion of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj Bala cted that their need qua the premises in question was not genuine. Besides it, the respondents were well settled in England and running their business successfully and thus never intended to settle It was also pleaded that even an tion filed against Harjit Singh having invoked Section 13-B of 1949 Ac was withdrawn on 19.07.2012 and a fresh tenancy was created in his favour while increasing the There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the eviction petition by contesting respondents against petitioners was not maintainable. It share from in the building in question; tenancy came to an end eviction petition could have especially when final decree of partition qua the said building was passed in favour of all concerned including Respondents recently created a fresh tenancy ground floor of the building in question in favour of Harjit Singh after having withdrawn an eviction petition B of the 1949 Act against him, besides renting out some portion of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj Bala cted that their need qua the premises in question was not genuine. Besides it, the respondents were well settled in England and running their business successfully and thus never intended to settle It was also pleaded that even an tion filed against Harjit Singh B of 1949 Ac was withdrawn on 19.07.2012 and a fresh tenancy was created in his favour while increasing the There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the eviction petition by contesting respondents against petitioners was not maintainable. It SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- 5. contest was filed with the prayer for rejection of the same. 6. 29.09.2014 leave to cont in terms of Section 13 the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present revision petition. 7. learned Rent Controller, Sh. representing -2014 (O&M) [5] was submitted that Sh.S.S. Gill who was predecessor of contesting respondents whi appearing as PW2 in Rent Petition No. 1998 himself stated that the demised portion was rented out to the petitioner by another co owner Karnail Singh and not by him. (f) Other eviction petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act by the contest against the petitioner qua the demised portion were pending adjudication as such the present eviction petition having invoked Section 13-B of the 1949 Act for the same cause was essential to grant leave to contest in favour of petitioner. A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to contest was filed with the prayer for rejection of the same. Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated 29.09.2014 rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of leave to contest followed by passing of an eviction order of even date in terms of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act while directing the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present revision Impugning the order dated learned Rent Controller, Sh. Divanshu Jain, representing the petitioner(s) made the following arguments was submitted that Sh.S.S. Gill who was predecessor of contesting respondents whi appearing as PW2 in Rent Petition No.193 of 1998 himself stated that the demised portion was rented out to the petitioner by another co owner Karnail Singh and not by him. Other eviction petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act by the contesting respondents against the petitioner qua the demised portion were pending adjudication as such the present eviction petition having invoked B of the 1949 Act for the same cause was essential to grant leave to contest in favour of petitioner. A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to contest was filed with the prayer for rejection of the same. Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of est followed by passing of an eviction order of even date B of the 1949 Act while directing him to vacate the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present revision Impugning the order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Divanshu Jain, learned Counsel made the following arguments:- was submitted that Sh.S.S. Gill who was predecessor of contesting respondents while 193 of 1998 himself stated that the demised portion was rented out to the petitioner by another co- Other eviction petitions filed under Section 13 dents against the petitioner qua the demised portion were pending adjudication as such the present eviction petition having invoked B of the 1949 Act for the same cause was essential to grant leave to contest A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of est followed by passing of an eviction order of even date to vacate the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present revision the learned Counsel SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- (i) (ii) -2014 (O&M) [6] Earlier eviction petitions respondents against the petitioners 13 of the 1949 Act were pending adjudication and that too with one of the ground been of which thus, prima facie, made leave to contest in favour of petitioner reliance was placed upon the decision rend Court in case “R.D. Singh, Principal, New Public School and another Versus Kirpal Singh Sethi reported as 2018 (1) RCR Raj Versus Malkiat Kaur (Rent) 667. Learned counsel also submitted eviction petition against tenant Harjit Singh was filed under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was withdrawn vide order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. (ii) Leave to contest was granted to simila Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated 19.09.2016 and the proceedings in t petition were at the circumstances, the case of petitioner placed, leave to contest was as well. Reliance in this decisions passed by this Cou Bawa Versus Satwant Singh RCR (Civil) 208; (ii) Civil Revision No. 6003 of “Jaswinder Singh Versus Bakhshish Singh on 20.04.2017 and (iii) Civil Revision No. 6047 of petitions filed at the instance of the petitioners while invoking Section pending adjudication and that too with one of the ground been of bona fide need therein made a valid ground for grant of in favour of petitioners. In this regard, placed upon the decision rendered by this R.D. Singh, Principal, New Public School and another Versus Kirpal Singh Sethi reported as 2018 (1) RCR (Rent) 616 and in case “Hans Raj Versus Malkiat Kaur”, reported as 2009 (2) RCR (Rent) 667. Learned counsel also submitted that another eviction petition against tenant Harjit Singh was filed B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was withdrawn vide order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. contest was granted to similarly placed tenant Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated 19.09.2016 and the proceedings in the said eviction petition were at the final stage; thus, in such se of petitioner being identically was required to be granted to him . Reliance in this regard was placed upon the decisions passed by this Court in case (i) “Mukand Lal Bawa Versus Satwant Singh”, reported as 2009 (3) Civil Revision No. 6003 of 2014, titled Jaswinder Singh Versus Bakhshish Singh” decided Civil Revision No. 6047 of 2013, filed at the instance of while invoking Section pending adjudication and that too need therein ground for grant of regard, ered by this R.D. Singh, Principal, New Public School and another Versus Kirpal Singh Sethi”, Hans ”, reported as 2009 (2) RCR that another eviction petition against tenant Harjit Singh was filed B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was withdrawn vide order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the tenant – Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated he said eviction final stage; thus, in such being identically him regard was placed upon the Mukand Lal ed as 2009 (3) 2014, titled decided 2013, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- (iii) (iv) (v) -2014 (O&M) [7] titled “Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh Kahlon” decided on dated 05.04.201 i) An eviction petition under Section 13 was filed at the instance of two of the respondents being co-sharers of another premises / SCO Nos. Sector-35B, Chandigarh, another eviction petition under the same provision while pleadi qua the demised premises at their instance was maintainable as under the statutory provisions of Section 13-B of 1949 Act an owner could apply only once for seeking immediate possession of one building during his life time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present eviction petition qua the demised question was not maintainable. (iv) Some portion of building in question was sold to Sh.V.K. Awasthi and his son as well as to one Harjeet Kaur between 2001 to 2004, besides having rented out some other portions of ground floor and top floo and Paramjit Singh as well as Saroj Bala, respectively, therefore, bona fide need of respondents was not established particularly when they had not returned back to India and were running their successful business in England. Around 1/8th share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in question was purchased by the petitioner owners vide sale deed dated 09.10.2001 petitioner having become co could not be evicted from the also submitted that neither all the other co building in question were impleaded as parties; nor their Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh dated 05.04.2017. under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act s filed at the instance of two of the respondents being sharers of another premises / SCO Nos. 317, 318, ndigarh, another eviction petition under the same provision while pleading the bona fide necessi qua the demised premises at their instance was not as under the statutory provisions of Section B of 1949 Act an owner could apply only once for seeking immediate possession of one building during his life time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present eviction petition qua the demised portion of the building in question was not maintainable. Some portion of building in question was sold to Sh.V.K. Awasthi and his son as well as to one Harjeet Kaur between 2001 to 2004, besides having rented out some other portions of ground floor and top floor to Harjit Singh and Paramjit Singh as well as Saroj Bala, respectively, need of respondents was not established particularly when they had not returned back to India and were running their successful business in share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in purchased by the petitioner from other co vide sale deed dated 09.10.2001 and therefore, having become co-sharer/co-owner therein evicted from the demised premises. It was also submitted that neither all the other co-owners of the building in question were impleaded as parties; nor their Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh B of the 1949 Act s filed at the instance of two of the respondents being 317, 318, ndigarh, another eviction petition under necessity not as under the statutory provisions of Section B of 1949 Act an owner could apply only once for seeking immediate possession of one building during his life time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present the building in Some portion of building in question was sold to Sh.V.K. Awasthi and his son as well as to one Harjeet Kaur between 2001 to 2004, besides having rented out some r to Harjit Singh and Paramjit Singh as well as Saroj Bala, respectively, need of respondents was not established particularly when they had not returned back to India and were running their successful business in share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in from other co- therefore, therein It was owners of the building in question were impleaded as parties; nor their SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- (vi) (vii) 8. respondents submits that the premises in question was required for the personal successful business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade Garments trade in the northern region of the country. With regard to Section 13 area measuring 17’ x 28 submitted that the same was done while keeping in view the requirement and suitability of respondents and eviction was sought for agains -2014 (O&M) [8] consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. (vi) Preliminary decree dated 19.05.2016 followed by the final decree dated 10.10.2018 Court with regard to the building partition filed at the instance of one of the co Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at t instance of respondents was liable to be dismissed (vii) There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the demised portion of building in question as rented out to petitioner by Karnail Singh and this fact was admitted by the predecessor respondents-Sh.S.S. Gill while appearing as PW2 in eviction petition No.193 of 1998 and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for grant of leave to contest. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the premises in question was required for the personal bona fide need of the respondents who were running successful business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade Garments trade in the northern region of the country. With regard to filing and withdrawal of eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of 1949 Act against Harjit Singh i.e. a tenant over an area measuring 17’ x 28’ of the ground floor (front portion), it was submitted that the same was done while keeping in view the requirement and suitability of respondents and eviction was sought for against the petitioner qua the 1/2 bay portion of ground consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. dated 19.05.2016 followed by the final decree dated 10.10.2018 was passed by the Civil building in question in a suit for partition filed at the instance of one of the co-owner Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at t instance of respondents was liable to be dismissed. There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the demised portion of building in question as rented out to petitioner by Karnail Singh and this fact predecessor-in-interest of contesting Sh.S.S. Gill while appearing as PW2 in eviction petition No.193 of 1998 and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for grant of leave to contest. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the premises in question was required for need of the respondents who were running successful business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade Garments trade in the northern region of the country. withdrawal of eviction petition filed under 49 Act against Harjit Singh i.e. a tenant over an of the ground floor (front portion), it was submitted that the same was done while keeping in view the requirement and suitability of respondents and eviction was sought the 1/2 bay portion of ground floor and consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition dated 19.05.2016 followed by the was passed by the Civil in a suit for owner Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at the There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the demised portion of building in question as rented out to petitioner by Karnail Singh and this fact interest of contesting Sh.S.S. Gill while appearing as PW2 in eviction petition No.193 of 1998 and therefore, the contesting respondents submits that the premises in question was required for need of the respondents who were running successful business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade Garments trade in the northern region of the country. withdrawal of eviction petition filed under 49 Act against Harjit Singh i.e. a tenant over an of the ground floor (front portion), it was submitted that the same was done while keeping in view the requirement and suitability of respondents and eviction was sought floor and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- also separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, namely, Canam Consultants Limited, from 1 against Harjit Kaur them. Further, it was specifically denied that any portion of building in question was ever sold by the owners. 8.1 on the ground that no objecti was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of petitioner by the thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of the same for their personal use and o without even obtaining the consent of other co that the petitioner had purchased some share of the building in question from another co being tenant under 9. through the paper submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 10. the instance of various ground pending adjudication before the -2014 (O&M) [9] separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, namely, Canam Consultants Limited, from 1 against Harjit Kaur from ground floor (front portion) as r them. Further, it was specifically denied that any portion of building in question was ever sold by the contesting With regard to the maintainability of the eviction petition on the ground that no objection from other co was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of petitioner by the contesting respondents being its co thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of the same for their personal use and occupation while invoking Section 13 B of the 1949 Act without even obtaining the consent of other co that the petitioner had purchased some share of the building in question from another co-owner was not going to change eing tenant under them. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book(s), but unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Mere fact that the previous eviction petition the instance of contesting respondents against grounds while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act pending adjudication before the Rent Controller separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, namely, Canam Consultants Limited, from 1st and 2nd floor as well as from ground floor (front portion) as rented out to them. Further, it was specifically denied that any portion of building in contesting respondents being its co With regard to the maintainability of the eviction petition on from other co-owners was obtained, it was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of respondents being its co-owners and thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of the same for their personal ccupation while invoking Section 13 B of the 1949 Act without even obtaining the consent of other co-owners and mere fact that the petitioner had purchased some share of the building in owner was not going to change his status of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book(s), but unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Mere fact that the previous eviction petitions preferred at respondents against the petitioner while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act were Rent Controller, Chandigarh was not separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, floor as well as ented out to them. Further, it was specifically denied that any portion of building in respondents being its co- With regard to the maintainability of the eviction petition owners was obtained, it was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of owners and thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of the same for their personal ccupation while invoking Section 13 B of the 1949 Act owners and mere fact that the petitioner had purchased some share of the building in status of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book(s), but unable to find substance in the preferred at the petitioner on were not SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- going to make any difference Section 13 upon them being immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in this regard can be made to the j Bench of this Court in through LRs being relevant, is extracted hereunder: 11. during the course of arguments -2014 (O&M) [10] going to make any difference qua their Section 13-B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred them being the co-owners of the immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (Dead) through LRs, reported as 2010 (2) Rent LR 74 and para 48 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder: “48. The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction pet filed by the respondent has no material bearing at all on the merits of the eviction petitions filed by her under Section 13B of the Act which confers a special right on the Non Indian-owner to seek eviction and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed by such NRI-landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither any issue as to whether or not the demised premises was required by the respondent for her personal use and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. Even the dismissal of an eviction petition on merits, filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under Section 138 of the Act. The non irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the respondent-landlady.” With respect to the plea on behalf of petitioner during the course of arguments about grant of leave to contest in their remedy as envisaged under B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred the building in question to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in udgment passed by a Coordinate Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (Dead) , reported as 2010 (2) Rent LR 74 and para 48 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder:- The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady in default, in my view, has no material bearing at all on the merits of the eviction petitions filed by her under Section 13B of the Act which confers a special right on the Non-Resident owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither any issue as to whether or not the demised premises e respondent for her personal use and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. Even the dismissal of an eviction petition on merits, filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under 138 of the Act. The non-disclosure of an irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the landlady.” With respect to the plea on behalf of petitioner – tenant about grant of leave to contest in as envisaged under B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in udgment passed by a Coordinate Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (Dead) , reported as 2010 (2) Rent LR 74 and para 48 thereof ition landlady in default, in my view, has no material bearing at all on the merits of the eviction petitions filed by her under Section 13B of the Resident of his tenant summarily and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither any issue as to whether or not the demised premises e respondent for her personal use and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. Even the dismissal of an eviction petition on merits, filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under disclosure of an irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the tenant about grant of leave to contest in SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- favour of portion of building in question order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller was assailed at the instance of Civil Revision No. favour vide order of even date of leave to contest to passed against him in terms of Accordingly, the petitioner benefit out of the same. relevant to the observations made by this Court in the case of “ Sky Worldwide Travels and (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted hereunder: -2014 (O&M) [11] r of petitioner in another eviction petition filed qua separate portion of building in question, it may be pointed out here that the said order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller was assailed at the instance of contesting Civil Revision No. 2956 of 2018 and the same vide order of even date, thereby of leave to contest to the petitioner followed by an order of eviction passed against him in terms of Secti Accordingly, the petitioner –tenant cannot benefit out of the same. Moreover, reference at this stage would be relevant to the observations made by this Court in the case of “ Sky Worldwide Travels and another Vs. Harvinder Singh (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted hereunder:- “8. The contention that in respect of yet another tenement within the same complex of building, a tenant has obtained an order of stay before t court could hardly be a ground for me to deny consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A landlord which seeks for eviction of several tenements may come by several obstructions and if he must wait for a period that all orders of eviction must be be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge of how our courts function. Each court takes its own time and there is no particular strategy that we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and petitioner in another eviction petition filed qua separate be pointed out here that the said order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh contesting respondents by way of 2956 of 2018 and the same got allowed in their , thereby rejecting the prayer for grant followed by an order of eviction ection 13–B of the 1949 A tenant cannot be permitted to draw any Moreover, reference at this stage would be relevant to the observations made by this Court in the case of “Blue another Vs. Harvinder Singh”, 2015 (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted The contention that in respect of yet another tenement within the same complex of building, a tenant has obtained an order of stay before t court could hardly be a ground for me to deny consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A landlord which seeks for eviction of several tenements may come by several obstructions and if he must wait for a period that all orders of eviction must be passed simultaneously, we must be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge of how our courts function. Each court takes its own time and there is no particular strategy that we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and petitioner in another eviction petition filed qua separate be pointed out here that the said Chandigarh by way of their grant followed by an order of eviction Act. draw any Moreover, reference at this stage would be Blue , 2015 (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted The contention that in respect of yet another tenement within the same complex of building, a tenant has obtained an order of stay before this court could hardly be a ground for me to deny consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A landlord which seeks for eviction of several tenements may come by several obstructions and if he must wait for a period that all orders of passed simultaneously, we must be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge of how our courts function. Each court takes its own time and there is no particular strategy that we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- 12. on behalf of the petitioner to the ef Section 13 respondents being co property forming part of SCO No. 317 the same was never withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was passed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with their other -2014 (O&M) [12] decided within any stipu of the Act itself sets a different procedure and imposes a duty on a court to consider whether there is any case made by the respondent before he is allowed to defend. This is to existing reality that no litigation in India comes to close immediately and a defence under whatever grounds and however fragile will assure to litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. If Section 13-B must be given a meaning, meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter the landlord from claiming eviction. If the landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such unusual contingency to prevail over my own judgment.” Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that eviction petition invoking Section 13-B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the respondents being co-owners along with others qua their joint property forming part of SCO No. 317 the same was never got adjudicated upon on merits and rather, it withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was passed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under Section B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with their other decided within any stipulated period. Section 13 of the Act itself sets a different procedure and imposes a duty on a court to consider whether there is any case made by the respondent before he is allowed to defend. This is to take note of an existing reality that no litigation in India comes to close immediately and a defence under whatever grounds and however fragile will assure to litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. B must be given a meaning, that meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter the landlord from claiming eviction. If the landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such unusual contingency to prevail over my own Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made fect that eviction petition invoking B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the owners along with others qua their joint property forming part of SCO No. 317–18, sector 35, Chandigarh as udicated upon on merits and rather, it was withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was passed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under Section B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with their other Section 13-B of the Act itself sets a different procedure and imposes a duty on a court to consider whether there is any case made by the respondent before take note of an existing reality that no litigation in India comes to close immediately and a defence under whatever grounds and however fragile will assure to litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. that meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter the landlord from claiming eviction. If the landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such unusual contingency to prevail over my own Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made fect that eviction petition invoking B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the owners along with others qua their joint 18, sector 35, Chandigarh as was withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was passed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under Section B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with their other SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- co-shares in the building bearing SCO No. 317 Chandigarh petition qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, namely, Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill, being co others did not even immediate possession of the said property in terms of the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two respondents, namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir substantially attained by them in their lifetime qua one building; accordingly, the present eviction petition filed at their instance, along with other respondents, being co of building in question was 12. eviction petition under other tenant non-filing of eviction petitions against who were the building in question was not to be treated as fatal as the free to seek evict requirement derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term -2014 (O&M) [13] shares in the building bearing SCO No. 317 Chandigarh was not to be treated as bar for filing of present eviction petition qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, namely, Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill, being co others did not even achieve the actual benefit of immediate possession of the said property in terms of the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two respondents, namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir substantially attained by them; which was thus in their lifetime qua one building; accordingly, the present eviction petition filed at their instance, along with other respondents, being co-owners qua the demise premises forming part of building in question was fully maintainable as per law. Also, the contesting respondents eviction petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act against their other tenant, namely, Harjit Singh; the s filing of eviction petitions against were in occupation of some portion of third floor, respectively, the building in question was not to be treated as fatal as the free to seek eviction from a part of building in question as per their requirement/ suitability and need. The aforesaid reasoning is even derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term shares in the building bearing SCO No. 317–318, Sector 35 be treated as bar for filing of present eviction petition qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, namely, Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill, being co-owners with the actual benefit of been handed over immediate possession of the said property in terms of Section 13 B of the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two respondents, namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill was never which was thus available to them once in their lifetime qua one building; accordingly, the present eviction petition filed at their instance, along with other contesting the demise premises forming part maintainable as per law. respondents having preferred B of the 1949 Act against their ; the same been withdrawn and the filing of eviction petitions against Paramjit Singh or Saroj Bala some portion of third floor, respectively, the building in question was not to be treated as fatal as they were ion from a part of building in question as per their The aforesaid reasoning is even derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term ‘building 318, Sector 35 be treated as bar for filing of present eviction petition qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, ners with handed over ection 13 B of the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two Singh Gill was never available to them once in their lifetime qua one building; accordingly, the present eviction contesting the demise premises forming part preferred B of the 1949 Act against their ame been withdrawn and the Paramjit Singh or Saroj Bala some portion of third floor, respectively, of were ion from a part of building in question as per their The aforesaid reasoning is even derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section building’ SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- also includes a part of it and therefore, the were well within their right to seek eviction of while invoking Section 13 and necessity 13. was established on record that the residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of actio special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised premises as provided under Section 13 contesting to expand was also established especially when there rebuttal to it by the upon him in India, it was not at all essential for the landowners to shift themselves was going to cost them, in terms of their already well est business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under Section 13 the law laid Harmesh Singh -2014 (O&M) [14] also includes a part of it and therefore, the were well within their right to seek eviction of while invoking Section 13-B of the 1949 Act and necessity with respect to the start of From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it as established on record that the residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of actio special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised premises as provided under Section 13 contesting respondents being successful businessmen and intending expand the same in the demised premises; their also established especially when there rebuttal to it by the petitioner/ tenant upon him. Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it was not at all essential for the landowners to shift themselves permanently was going to cost them, in terms of their already well est business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under ection 13-B of 1949 Act. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon laid down by this Court in case o Harmesh Singh, 2015 (1) RCR (Rent) also includes a part of it and therefore, the contesting respondents were well within their right to seek eviction of even a part of building B of the 1949 Act; as per their requirement with respect to the start of new business. From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it as established on record that the contesting respondents were residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to invoke their special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised premises as provided under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. The being successful businessmen and intending the same in the demised premises; their bonafide need also established especially when there was no substantial / tenant for which burden was always . Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it was not at all essential for the contesting respondents permanently in advance as the same was going to cost them, in terms of their already well established business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under n this regard, reliance can be placed upon ourt in case of Rakesh Sharma versus (Rent) 589. Relevant paragraph 10 respondents a part of building requirement From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it respondents were residing in England for the last many decades; running their business n to invoke their special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised of the 1949 Act. The being successful businessmen and intending need no substantial for which burden was always . Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business respondents – in advance as the same ablished business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under n this regard, reliance can be placed upon Rakesh Sharma versus 589. Relevant paragraph 10 SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- of the this 14. nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the respondents eviction/ immediate possession of the demised their bona fide need. judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kumar’s case relevant is extracted hereunder: -2014 (O&M) [15] this judgment is reproduced hereunder “10. The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the present case, the sale deed was executed wayback on 13.12.1991 and on the basis of the rent note, the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhabi had never been denied, as such and the only ground taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. It has also been held that the return to India, as such, is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the business by staying in a foreign country and he can do that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of law that the leave to contest is only to be the grounds raised in the application filed under Section 18-A of the Act, which would show that triable issues had been made out. Further, the language of Section 13 nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the respondents being co-owners were undoubtedly having right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised their bona fide need. Reference in this judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kumar’s case (supra). For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being relevant is extracted hereunder:- “26. The petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not the sole owner cannot sustain for the reason that a NRI co-owner/ joint owner can also file eviction petition under Section 13B of the Act.” judgment is reproduced hereunder:- The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the present case, the sale deed was executed wayback on the basis of the rent note, the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhabi had never been denied, as such and the only ground taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. o been held that the return to India, as such, is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the business by staying in a foreign country and he can do that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of law that the leave to contest is only to be granted on the grounds raised in the application filed under A of the Act, which would show that triable issues had been made out.” the language of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the contesting owners were undoubtedly having right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised portion on account of this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being The petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not le owner cannot sustain for the reason that a owner/ joint owner can also file eviction petition under Section 13B of the Act.” The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the present case, the sale deed was executed wayback on the basis of the rent note, the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhabi had never been denied, as such and the only ground taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. o been held that the return to India, as such, is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the business by staying in a foreign country and he can do that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of granted on the grounds raised in the application filed under A of the Act, which would show that triable B of the 1949 Act contesting owners were undoubtedly having right to seek on account of regard can be made to the Lakhwinder For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being The petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not le owner cannot sustain for the reason that a owner/ joint owner can also file eviction SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- case of RCR (Rent) 264 here under: -2014 (O&M) [16] Similar observations have been made by this case of Paramjit Singh Vs. Satnam Singh Rent) 264 and relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted here under:- “9. ……In the instant case, the petitioner has claimed to have purchased the land over which the demised shop has been built along with his brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a partition had been effected between himself and his brother and the land over which the demised shop is constructed had fallen to his share which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. present revision petitioner. Though the petitioner has not produce show that the partition of the land over which the demised shop has been constructed has been effected between himself and his brother, however, even in the absence of any material coming on record to this effect, this Court is inclined to hold that even on assuming the petitioner to be co still there was no bar for him to file the petition seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is no such requirement of law and even if a landlord is not proved to the property in dispute, he can take up the proceedings under Section 13 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance upon Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble Similar observations have been made by this Court in Paramjit Singh Vs. Satnam Singh, reported as 2024 relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted ……In the instant case, the petitioner has claimed to have purchased the land over which the demised shop has been built along with his brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a partition had been effected between himself and his brother and the land over which the demised shop is constructed had fallen to his share which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. present revision petitioner. Though the petitioner has not produced any document on record to show that the partition of the land over which the demised shop has been constructed has been effected between himself and his brother, however, even in the absence of any material coming on record to this effect, this Court is inclined to hold that even on assuming the petitioner to be co-owner of the demised shop, still there was no bar for him to file the petition seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is no such requirement of law and even if a landlord is not proved to be the sole owner of the property in dispute, he can take up the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act, 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble ourt in (1) relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted ……In the instant case, the petitioner has claimed to have purchased the land over which the demised shop has been built along with his brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a partition had been effected between himself and his brother and the land over which the demised shop is constructed had fallen to his share which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. present revision petitioner. Though the petitioner d any document on record to show that the partition of the land over which the demised shop has been constructed has been effected between himself and his brother, however, even in the absence of any material coming on record to this effect, this Court is inclined to hold that even on assuming the owner of the demised shop, still there was no bar for him to file the petition seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is no such requirement of law and even if a be the sole owner of the property in dispute, he can take up the B of the Act, 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- 15. of the building in question vide sale deed dated of the co qua the demised premises Reference be placed o Court in case of “ Husan Ban relevant is reproduced hereunder: -2014 (O&M) [17] Apex Court had observed so. Reliance can also be placed upon 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of this Court had also observed so. As such, it is held that the argument as raised by the revision petitioner-respondent that since the was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the demised shop, therefore, he could not seek ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be rejected.” Just because that the petitioner purchased 1/18th share of the building in question vide sale deed dated co-owners, is not going to change qua the demised premises been occupied under the Reference be placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Parmod Kumar Jaiswal and others Vs. Bibi Husan Bano, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being relevant is reproduced hereunder:- “21. In T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy Court considered the question in detail in the context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that there is no determination of the lease in terms of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Prop where a tenant acquires only partial ownership interest. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council, the decision of this Court and t had observed so. Reliance can also be placed upon Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of this Court had also observed so. As such, it is held that the argument as raised by the revision respondent that since the petitioner was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the demised shop, therefore, he could not seek ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be e petitioner purchased 1/18th share of the building in question vide sale deed dated 09.10.2001 from one not going to change his status of being tenant occupied under the respondents n the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Parmod Kumar Jaiswal and others Vs. Bibi , 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra) this Court considered the question in detail in the context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that there is no determination of the lease in terms of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act where a tenant acquires only partial ownership interest. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council, the decision of this Court and t had observed so. Reliance can also Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of this Court had also observed so. As such, it is held that the argument as raised by the revision petitioner was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the demised shop, therefore, he could not seek ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be e petitioner purchased 1/18th share from one status of being tenant respondents. n the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Parmod Kumar Jaiswal and others Vs. Bibi , 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. (supra) this Court considered the question in detail in the context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that there is no determination of the lease in terms of erty Act where a tenant acquires only partial ownership interest. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council, the decision of this Court and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- 16. owners of the building in question; petitions; suited. N the demised premises on account of filing of ejectment petition nothing been joint ownership which was beyond the portion left out of these eviction proceedings, -2014 (O&M) [18] other relevant materials, this Court held that the lease cannot be said to have been determined by merger so long as the interests of the lessee, the lesser estate and that of the owner, the larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. This Court also noticed that merger was largely a question of intention dependant on certain circumstances and the courts against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party. With respect we find that the position has been correctly stated in and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra). The subsequent decision in Umbrella Manu Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and Others proceeds on the same lines and supports the above position. We approve the principle of law stated in T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others In addition, the fact that Harjeet owners of the building in question; filed her objection to the eviction ; the contesting respondents . Neither Harjeet Kaur was put to any loss qua possession of the demised premises on account of filing of ejectment petition nothing been brought on record by her to establish her share in the joint ownership being more than the portion of building in question ch was beyond the portion left out of these eviction proceedings, other relevant materials, this Court held that the lease cannot be said to have been determined so long as the interests of the lessee, the lesser estate and that of the owner, the larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. This Court also noticed that merger was largely a question of intention dependant on certain circumstances and the courts will presume against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party. With respect we find that the position has been correctly stated in T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra). The subsequent decision in India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and Others v. Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and Others (supra) also proceeds on the same lines and supports the above position. We approve the principle of law T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. da Reddy and others (supra).” Harjeet Kaur being one of the co filed her objection to the eviction / landlords were not to be non Harjeet Kaur was put to any loss qua possession of the demised premises on account of filing of ejectment petition brought on record by her to establish her share in the more than the portion of building in question ch was beyond the portion left out of these eviction proceedings, other relevant materials, this Court held that the lease cannot be said to have been determined so long as the interests of the lessee, the lesser estate and that of the owner, the larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. This Court also noticed that merger was largely a question of intention dependant on certain will presume against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party. With respect we find that the position T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others India facturing Co. and Others v. Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri (supra) also proceeds on the same lines and supports the above position. We approve the principle of law T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. one of the co- filed her objection to the eviction / landlords were not to be non- Harjeet Kaur was put to any loss qua possession of the demised premises on account of filing of ejectment petitions; brought on record by her to establish her share in the more than the portion of building in question ch was beyond the portion left out of these eviction proceedings, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- nor she was the circumstances where claimed any rent being paid required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment petition by the invoking their special right under also be pointed out here that even if Harjeet Kaur claimed any kind of financial loss, at best recovery by way of rendition of account or/an demises premises which as per stage of passing of final as per the final decree of partition of bunch of these four r owner was not be disturbed and the rights of the co their entitlement were to be settled upon putting the auction. Further, the contesting respondents were held entitled for 83.3328% sha of deceased Sh.S.S. Gill and petitioner was held entitled for 1% share only. 17. petitioner been sold by the -2014 (O&M) [19] nor she was thus going to suffer any financial loss towards rent. In the circumstances wherein, none of the other co themselves to be the landlord of petitioner; or ever pleaded any rent being paid to them, as such their required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment petition by the contesting respondents/co invoking their special right under Section 13 also be pointed out here that even if Harjeet Kaur claimed any kind of financial loss, at best, she was to avail her recovery by way of rendition of account or/an demises premises which as per records stage of passing of final decree) between the parties as per the final decree of partition passed of bunch of these four revision petitions, the possession was not be disturbed and the rights of the co their entitlement were to be settled upon putting the . Further, the contesting respondents were held entitled for 83.3328% share of the entire building in question, including the share of deceased Sh.S.S. Gill and petitioner was held entitled for 1% share Further, it has not been established on record by the petitioner – tenant that any part of the building in question sold by the contesting respondents going to suffer any financial loss towards rent. In none of the other co-owners either to be the landlord of petitioner; or ever pleaded as such their consent was not at all required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment respondents/co-owners for the purpose of ection 13-B of 1949 Act. It may also be pointed out here that even if Harjeet Kaur claimed any kind of avail her remedy of filing suit for recovery by way of rendition of account or/and seek partition of records was already subjudice (at the ) between the parties. Moreover, even passed which is part of the records evision petitions, the possession of any co was not be disturbed and the rights of the co-owners as per their entitlement were to be settled upon putting their shares . Further, the contesting respondents were held entitled for re of the entire building in question, including the share of deceased Sh.S.S. Gill and petitioner was held entitled for 1% share has not been established on record by the tenant that any part of the building in question has ever respondents–landlords as the sale if any going to suffer any financial loss towards rent. In ither to be the landlord of petitioner; or ever pleaded consent was not at all required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment for the purpose of B of 1949 Act. It may also be pointed out here that even if Harjeet Kaur claimed any kind of remedy of filing suit for d seek partition of (at the Moreover, even which is part of the records of any co- owners as per shares to . Further, the contesting respondents were held entitled for re of the entire building in question, including the share of deceased Sh.S.S. Gill and petitioner was held entitled for 1% share has not been established on record by the ever landlords as the sale if any SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- was only by the other owners predecessor attorney sold the share of another co Mr.V.K.Awasthi and his son Sanjay Awasthi in 2003, but the same nowhere affects the rights of the respondents as even Sh.S.S.Gill never sold any part of his share from the joint ownership. 18. submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the demised premises was rented out to him by the co thus there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the contesting respondents were not entit eviction of petitioner by invoking Section 13 of 1949 Act especially when neither there was pleadings; nor even an record to show that the rent was ever paid to Karnail Singh. Moreover, the statement made by Sh.S.S. Gill whi PW2 in earlier eviction petition No.193 of 1998 filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act to the effect that “it is possibly yes that the property was rented out by co rights of the contesting r of the 1949 Act, the same been conferring special right upon the owner of a building to seek immediate possession of the demised premises from the tenant. Again the language of Section 13 1949 Act nowher -2014 (O&M) [20] was only by the other owners. In fact, Mr.S.S. Gill, i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents attorney sold the share of another co- Mr.V.K.Awasthi and his son Sanjay Awasthi in 2003, but the same nowhere affects the rights of the respondents as even Sh.S.S.Gill never sold any part of his share from the joint ownership. Additionally, no substance can be fou submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the demised premises was rented out to him by the co thus there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the contesting respondents were not entit eviction of petitioner by invoking Section 13 of 1949 Act especially when neither there was pleadings; nor even an record to show that the rent was ever paid to Karnail Singh. Moreover, the statement made by Sh.S.S. Gill whi PW2 in earlier eviction petition No.193 of 1998 filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act to the effect that “it is possibly yes that the property was rented out by co-owner Karnail Singh’ was not going to effect the rights of the contesting respondents as available under Section 13 of the 1949 Act, the same been conferring special right upon the owner of a building to seek immediate possession of the demised premises from the tenant. Again the language of Section 13 1949 Act nowhere talks about the terms landlord and thus, the . In fact, Mr.S.S. Gill, i.e. the interest of the contesting respondents being power of -owner, namely, Karnail Singh to Mr.V.K.Awasthi and his son Sanjay Awasthi in 2003, but the same nowhere affects the rights of the respondents as even Sh.S.S.Gill never sold any part of his share from the joint ownership. Additionally, no substance can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the demised premises was rented out to him by the co-owner Karnail Singh and thus there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the contesting respondents were not entitled to seek eviction of petitioner by invoking Section 13 of 1949 Act especially when neither there was pleadings; nor even an iota of evidence on record to show that the rent was ever paid to Karnail Singh. Moreover, the statement made by Sh.S.S. Gill while appearing as PW2 in earlier eviction petition No.193 of 1998 filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act to the effect that “it is possibly yes that the property owner Karnail Singh’ was not going to effect the espondents as available under Section 13 of the 1949 Act, the same been conferring special right upon the owner of a building to seek immediate possession of the demised premises from the tenant. Again the language of Section 13-B of the e talks about the terms landlord and thus, the . In fact, Mr.S.S. Gill, i.e. the being power of namely, Karnail Singh to Mr.V.K.Awasthi and his son Sanjay Awasthi in 2003, but the same nowhere affects the rights of the respondents as even Sh.S.S.Gill nd in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the demised owner Karnail Singh and thus there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the led to seek eviction of petitioner by invoking Section 13 of 1949 Act especially of evidence on record to show that the rent was ever paid to Karnail Singh. le appearing as PW2 in earlier eviction petition No.193 of 1998 filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act to the effect that “it is possibly yes that the property owner Karnail Singh’ was not going to effect the espondents as available under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, the same been conferring special right upon the owner of a building to seek immediate possession of the demised B of the e talks about the terms landlord and thus, the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- contesting respondents being co right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised property on account of their 19. do not come to the cases of (supra), it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction h petitioner so as to establish that the plea of property in question as set up by the respondents in any of their petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on merits. Besides it, the decisions made in (supra), Singh’s the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being r hereunder: -2014 (O&M) [21] contesting respondents being co-owners were undoubtedly having right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised property on account of their bona fide need. Moreover, the judgments cited on beh do not come to his rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in the cases of Kirpal Singh Sethi’s case (supra) and , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction has been brought on record by the petitioner so as to establish that the plea of property in question as set up by the respondents in any of their petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on merits. Besides it, the decisions made in (supra), Smt. Kaushalya Rani’s case (supra) again would not help the petitioner in view of the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being r hereunder:- “28. Close to the same, very true, as pointed out that there are 4-5 other shops, relating to which, undisputedly ejectment petitions have been filed. It is submitted that as per the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the petitions under Section 13B owners were undoubtedly having right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised property Moreover, the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in case (supra) and Hans Raj’s case , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the as been brought on record by the petitioner so as to establish that the plea of bona fide necessity of the property in question as set up by the respondents in any of their petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on merits. Besides it, the decisions made in Mukand Lal Bawa’s case case (supra) and Jaswinder case (supra) again would not help the petitioner in view of the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of Ved Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal, 2024 (2) RCR (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being relevant is extracted Close to the same, very true, as pointed out that 5 other shops, relating to which, undisputedly ejectment petitions have been filed. It is submitted that as per Section 13B of the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the Section 13B, qua all the shops in owners were undoubtedly having right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised property alf of the petitioner rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in case , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the as been brought on record by the necessity of the property in question as set up by the respondents in any of their petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on case Jaswinder case (supra) again would not help the petitioner in view of Ved , 2024 (2) RCR elevant is extracted Close to the same, very true, as pointed out that 5 other shops, relating to which, undisputedly ejectment petitions have been of the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the , qua all the shops in SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- 20. has failed to rebut the genui contesting leave to contest and thus circumstances, it judgment of (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are hereunder: -2014 (O&M) [22] possession of tenants, is However, the aforesaid submission is not tenable. Suffice to make reference to the decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal Dua vs. Shander Singh, in CR decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held that 'building' includ part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded that where the premises in possession of various tenants are part of same building, therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' and the landowner is entitled to maintain v petitions filed against the various tenants of the same building.” Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to rebut the genuineness of the need expressed by the contesting respondents – landlords in leave to contest and thus the same needs to be rejected. circumstances, it may be relevant to place reliance upon the judgment of Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are hereunder:- “20. The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI landlord is reflected from the summary procedure prescribed under Section 18 which requires the Controller to take up the matter on day-to-day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an application. The Legislature wants the decision of the possession of tenants, is not maintainable. However, the aforesaid submission is not tenable. Suffice to make reference to the decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal Dua vs. Shander Singh, in CR-4286-2014, decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held that 'building' included entire building, as also part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded that where the premises in possession of various tenants are part of same building, therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' and the landowner is entitled to maintain various petitions filed against the various tenants of the petitioner-tenant in the given facts neness of the need expressed by the landlords in his application, for seeking the same needs to be rejected. In such may be relevant to place reliance upon the Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, 2005 (2) RCR (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI landlord is reflected from the summary procedure prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act of 1949 Controller to take up the matter on day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an application. The Legislature wants the decision of the not maintainable. However, the aforesaid submission is not tenable. Suffice to make reference to the decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal 2014, decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held ed entire building, as also part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded that where the premises in possession of various tenants are part of same building, therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' arious petitions filed against the various tenants of the in the given facts neness of the need expressed by the for seeking In such may be relevant to place reliance upon the , 2005 (2) RCR extracted The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI landlord is reflected from the summary procedure A of the Act of 1949 Controller to take up the matter on day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an application. The Legislature wants the decision of the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [23] Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction, it i only the High Court which can exercise the power of consideration of the case, whether the decision of the Controller is in accordance with law. Section 13 gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and o premises for five years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for ejectment only once during his life time. Sub Section 13-Bimposes a restriction that he shall not transfer through sale or any the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any of the conditions of sub the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession of the said building. Under sub Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part such building to any other person except the evicted tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term which can be extended upto six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine. Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five years Virtually conditions and restrict the NRI landlord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction, it i only the High Court which can exercise the power of consideration of the case, whether the decision of the Controller is in accordance with law. Section 13- gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and owner of the premises for five years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for ejectment only once during his life time. Sub-s. (3) of Bimposes a restriction that he shall not transfer through sale or any other means or lease out the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any of the conditions of sub-section (3) of Section 13-B, t is given a right of restoration of possession of the said building. Under sub-section (2-B) of Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part of such building to any other person except the evicted tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term which can be extended upto six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong esumption that the need of the landlord is genuine. Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five years Virtually conditions and restrictions imposed on the NRI landlord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction, it is only the High Court which can exercise the power of consideration of the case, whether the decision of the -B gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord wner of the premises for five years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for s. (3) of Bimposes a restriction that he shall not other means or lease out the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any B, t is given a right of restoration of possession B) of Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he of such building to any other person except the evicted tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term which can be extended upto six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong esumption that the need of the landlord is genuine. Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five ions imposed on the NRI landlord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [24] tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous landlord probably, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the ten onerous conditions imposed on him by which practically he is deprived of his right in the property not only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of the property by sale o restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord would approach the court he would approach when his need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under Section 13-B by the NRI landlords for the ejectmen the tenant, the Court shall presume that landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. But this would not dis that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden w to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in t Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlords' favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous landlord probably, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him by which practically he is deprived of his right in the property not only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of the property by sale or any other manner. The restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord h the court he would approach when his need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of-course, subject to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of the tenant, the Court shall presume that landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. But this would not dis- entitle the tenant from proving that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong n the landlords' favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous landlord probably, under this Section, would approach ant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him by which practically he is deprived of his right in the property not only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of r any other manner. The restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord h the court he would approach when his course, subject to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under t of the tenant, the Court shall presume that landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. entitle the tenant from proving that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord ould lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to he affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong n the landlords' favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- Kumar versus S.Kuldeep Singh again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon No.16 of the aforementioned judgment hereunder: -2014 (O&M) [25] genuine. 21. We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's ne regarding the bona fide and genuiness is permitted, the legislative intent of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained according to plain language used in the enactment and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Ver v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of Income- Tax, Madras, AIR (1956) SC 604. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumar versus S.Kuldeep Singh, 2023 again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon of the aforementioned judgment under:- “16. From the scheme of things under Section 13 read with Section 18 the owner invoking Section 13 ingredients of the said Section and t We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's need regarding the bona fide and genuiness is permitted, the legislative intent of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained cording to plain language used in the enactment and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Verghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of Tax, Madras, AIR (1956) SC 604.” ’ble Apex Court in a latest decision of Mukesh 2023 (2) RCR (Rent) 657, has again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon tenant. Para of the aforementioned judgment being relevant, is reproduced From the scheme of things under Section 13-B read with Section 18-A, we are of the view that the owner invoking Section 13-B satisfies the ingredients of the said Section and the onus is We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that ed regarding the bona fide and genuiness is permitted, the legislative intent of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained cording to plain language used in the enactment and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice ghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of Mukesh 657, has again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts Para is reproduced B A, we are of the view that B satisfies the he onus is SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- 21. especially not relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case of the legal precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides even finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, the prayer made by petitioner for grant of leave to contest revision petition is hereby dismissed. tenant is premises in favour of the directed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. 22. opinion of this Court, since the matter/ controversy in hand is CR No.8171 assessed order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. 29.09.2014 till the date of handing over of the vacant poss premises, therefore, the application bearing at the instance of respondents is hereby allowed and they are held entitled to the same benefits/ -2014 (O&M) [26] on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction under Section 13-B, which, in our considered view, Mukesh Kumar failed to do.” In view of the discussion made hereinabove and especially for the judgments relied upon by the petitioner/ tenant been not relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case of the legal precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides even finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, the prayer made by petitioner for grant of leave to contest revision petition is hereby dismissed. is directed to handover the vacant possession of premises in favour of the contesting directed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. With respect to grant of opinion of this Court, since the matter/ controversy in hand is CR No.8171-2014, wherein this Court, vide order of even date, has assessed mesne profits @ Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the date of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. 29.09.2014 till the date of handing over of the vacant poss premises, therefore, the application bearing at the instance of respondents is hereby allowed and they are held entitled to the same benefits/ mesne on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction under B, which, in our considered view, Mukesh Kumar failed to do.” In view of the discussion made hereinabove and upon by the petitioner/ tenant been not relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case; in terms of the legal precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides even finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated 29.09.2014 by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, about declining the prayer made by petitioner for grant of leave to contest the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the petitioner/ directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised contesting respondents/ landlords directed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. With respect to grant of mesne profits, in the humble opinion of this Court, since the matter/ controversy in hand is akin 2014, wherein this Court, vide order of even date, has profits @ Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the date of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. 29.09.2014 till the date of handing over of the vacant possession of the demised premises, therefore, the application bearing CM-2300-CII-2024 filed at the instance of respondents is hereby allowed and they are held mesne profits as assessed in CR on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction under B, which, in our considered view, In view of the discussion made hereinabove and upon by the petitioner/ tenant been in terms of the legal precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides 29.09.2014 about declining the present Resultantly, the petitioner/ the demised as profits, in the humble akin to 2014, wherein this Court, vide order of even date, has profits @ Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the date of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. 29.09.2014 till ession of the demised filed at the instance of respondents is hereby allowed and they are held as assessed in CR SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- No.8171- 23. disposed of. 26.05.2025 sanjay -2014 (O&M) [27] -2014. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2025 ( Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? lication(s), if any, shall also stand HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Yes/No lication(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document