The tenants have filed applications for leave to companytest under section 18 A of the act, wherein, they dispute the landlord and tenant relationship and according to them the shops were let out to them by one Gurbachan Singh and number by respondent and the tenants are paying rents regularly to him.
The respondent claiming to be an NRI and being desirous of having possession of the tenanted premises so as to settle down in India, sought eviction of tenants by filing separate petitions under section 13 B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against all the four tenants.
By way of defence, it was alleged by Vijay Kumar that he is number the tenant of the disputed shop, and it is his brother Vipin Kumar is the tenant and is running the shop in his own name and, therefore, the proceedings filed under section 13 B of the Rent Act is number maintainable for number joinder of necessary and proper parties.
In the eviction petition filed against one another tenant Vijay Kumar, the respondent had claimed that she is an NRI and has leased out one of the shops in the building owned by her to Vijay Kumar in the year 1990.
By the judgment and the order impugned, High Court has allowed and remanded all the three Revision Petitions to the Rent Controller, Nakodar, to reconsider all the issues raised in the application filed under Section 18 A of the Act in accordance with law.
The building has four shops and three of which has been let out to the appellants and the fourth shop to one Sri Vijay Kumar.
The tenants appeared in all the four eviction petitions, out of which three are pending before the Rent Controller, Nakodar.
Secondly, the respondent was number an NRI at the time of letting out the shop premises and has number acquired the status of an NRI even till today.
The Rent Controller, Nakodar, vide its order dated 15.6.2007, without giving any finding with regard to the status of the respondent Gurmit Kaur being NRI or number, had companycluded that the tenancy created in favour of Vijay Kumar stands prima facie proved from the rent deed dated 7.7.1993 and as such there is numbertenancy created in favour of Vipin Kumar and therefore, the petition filed under Section 13 B of the Rent Act by the landlady deserves to be allowed and, accordingly, has directed Vijaya Kumar to deliver the immediate possession of the shop premises to the landlady.
The factual matrix as asserted by the respondent landlady are the respondent Gurmit Kaur is the owner landlady of the disputed property which was purchased by her vide registered sale deed dated 16.4.1971.
Since, she has companye back to India, she requires the shop premises for her own use and occupation.
L. Dattu,J. This is a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the judgment and order dated 28.4.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
We grant special leave and dispose of this appeal.
