Lakhwinder Kumar vs Manjit Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1669 P&H

  108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                  1.CR-1974-2018 (O&M)

Lakhwinder Kumar
                                              ....Petitioner

           Versus

Manjit Singh
                                             ..Respondent

2.CR-1977-2018 (O&M)

Inderjit ....Petitioner

Versus

Manjit Singh ..Respondent

3.CR-1978-2018 (O&M)

Jaswinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus

Manjit Singh ..Respondent

4.CR-2715-2018 (O&M)

Kamaljit Singh ....Petitioner Versus

Manjit Singh ..Respondent

Date of decision: 15.03.2022

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Manu K Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner in CR-1974,1977 and 1978 of 2018

Mr. G.S.Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner in CR-2715-2018

Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the respondent

1 of 3

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

By this order, four civil revision petitions i.e CR-1974,

1977, 1978 and 2715 of 2018 shall stand disposed of.

Learned counsel representing the respective parties are ad

idem that these revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order.

The petitioners in all the four revision petitions are the

tenants. They have been ordered to be evicted by the learned Rent

Controller while allowing the petitions filed under Section 13-B of the

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to

'the 1949 Act'). Section 13-B of the 1949 Act enables a Non Resident

Indian to take immediate possession of the tenanted property. The

eviction petition was filed in the year 2012.

These revision petitions were kept pending in order to await

the decision of the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram

Krishan Grover and others vs. Union of India and others (Civil

Appeal No.8597-2019) decided on 14.11.2019.

Learned counsel representing the petitioners admit that the

aforesaid judgment is against the petitioners, even then they have been

permitted to address the Court on merits. They contend that the

respondent while filing the eviction petition did not disclose the property

specified in para 12 of the affidavit. It is not in dispute that the

respondent-landlord has disclosed the aforesaid property in his own

affidavit. Hence, there is no intentional concealment of material facts

disentitling him from the order of eviction.

The next argument of the learned counsel representing the

2 of 3

petitioners is that the respondent has not come back from Italy.

On reading of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, it is evident

that the landlord is not required to return to India to file an eviction

petition. The aforesaid matter is no longer res integra. Reliance in this

regard can be made to judgment rendered in Satish Aggarwal vs.

Davinder Kumar 2020 (2) RCR (Rent) 479.

Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

Dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

15.03.2022                                       (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes/No
Whether reportable :                Yes/No




                                  3 of 3