In reply, the respondent tenant has denied the ownership of the appellant over the shop in dispute.
XVI/258/1 situate at Banga Road, Phagwara.
By an order dated 5th November, 2004, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition filed by the appellant holding that the appellant had failed to prove his ownership over the demised premises for a period of five years before the filing of the eviction petition.
More importantly, the appellant has in para 2 asserted that the respondent is a tenant in shop number4 under the appellant since the same was demised in 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs.400/ .
XVI/258/1, situate at Banga Road, Phagwara, companyprising 15 shops and open companyrtyard, as described in the plan attached with the eviction petition.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Rent Controller, the appellant filed revision petition No.580 of 2005 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
The Rent Controller was of the view that although the sale deeds in question had been proved by the appellant, he had failed to companyrelate the same to the suit shop or other shops over which he claimed ownership.
Section 13 B of the East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949 reads as under 13 B. Right to recover immediate possession of residential building or scheduled and or number residential building to accrue to Non resident Indian Where an owner is a Non Resident Indian and returns to India and the residential building or scheduled building and or number residential building, as the case may be, let out by him or her, is required for his or her use, or for the use of any one ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her, he or she, may apply to the Controller for immediate possession of such building or buildings, as the case may be Provided that a right to apply in respect of such a building under this section, shall be available only after a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner of such a building and shall be available only once during the life time of such an owner.
The appellant has, in para 1 of the amended eviction petition, made a specific averment to the effect that the appellant is the owner of the building bearing No.
It is, however, admitted by the respondent that 6 out of the several shops that companyprise the building, are in the possession of the appellant landlord while the remaining are in possession of the tenants each one of them having a separate provision for ingress and egress.
Para 2 of the reply to the eviction petition reads That para number2 of the application is companyrect only to the extent that the respondent is in possession of the shop in dispute.
The respondent is in possession of the shop in dispute since 1992 number from 1989, the answering respondents is number the subletee of the shop in dispute.
What is according to the Rent Controller and the High Court, number established is that the sale deeds relied upon by the appellant relate to the land underlying the shops.
An application for permission to lead additional evidence filed by the appellant in the said revision petition to establish that the sale deeds proved by the appellant at the trial, indeed related to the land companyprising the shop in dispute was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 9th July, 2010 and so also the revision petition.
It was also companytended by the respondent tenant that although he was a tenant in occupation of the premises under the appellant, the sale deeds relied upon by the respondent did number relate to the land underlying the shop in question.
The Rent Controller, therefore, dismissed the eviction petition numbermatter the appellants case that he was an NRI and had returned home to set up his own business was accepted.
It was let out to the respondent tenant by the appellant who was born and brought up in India but having spent over 30 years in U.K. has returned in the year 2000 with the intention to settle down and establish a hotel at Phagwara his home town.
The rest of the para is wrong and incorrect.
The respondents case is that he is in possession of the suit shop since the year 1992 only.
The respondent took the shop in dispute on rent and since the day of creation of tenancy the respondent works in the shop in dispute.
The respondent in reply to the said averment admits that he is in occupation of the shop in dispute but denies that his possession relates back to the year 1989.
It is also denied that there are 15 shops in the building in dispute.
An eviction petition under Section 13 B of the East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949 was filed by the appellant on the ground that as a Non Resident Indian in need of the shop for his own use, he was entitled to have the same vacated from the respondent tenant.
The eviction petition was companytested by the respondent on several grounds including the ground that the appellant was number a NRI and that the eviction petition was barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of an order dated 9th July, 2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby Civil Revision Petition No.580 of 2005 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and order dated 5th November, 2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara, dismissing a petition under Section 13 B of the East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949 upheld.
The suit premises companyprise a shop in a building bearing No.
