JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 1946 of 2005 and Civil Revision No. 1947 of 2005 field by the tenants inducted by the respondents in respect of two separate shops, allegedly, part of the same building, Under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. The respondents (husband and wife) herein sought the ejectment of the petitioner Matta Pher and his son of Ram Prasad and his son Hub Lal in Civil Revision No. 1946 of 2005 and Vivek Sareen petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1947 of 2005, from the shops in dispute as shown in the site plan in terms of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. It has been alleged that the petitioners were inducted as tenants 15 years back and that the respondents are the Non-Resident Indians being immigrant. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the premises are required for bona fide personal use for the purpose of constructing a show room by including both the shops to start business of ready made garments on modern basis, the petitioner sought leave to contest the said petition filed by the respondents Under Section 13-B of the Act, inter alia on the ground that the site plan produced by the respondents in incorrect and that the respondents have not disclosed the pendency of the other ejectment petition between the parties. The petitioners admitted their position as tenants but asserted that whole area is a residential area and there is o existence of any market in the locality. It is further pleaded that the owners have got one shop vacant and the whole building attached to the shop measuring, at least 10 marlas is also lying vacant and the owners if wanted can easily start their business in the said area. The petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to produce the documents to prove that they are Non-Resident Indians and are owners of the property for last more than five years. It was also alleged that the respondents have no intention to settle or to start business in this country. It was also pleaded that previously, the property was the ownership of one Gian Chand, while seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the documents of ownership.
3. The learned Rent Controller found that the respondents have proved the fact that they are Non-Resident Indians on the basis of certified copies of passport produced on record. A copy of the sale deed dated 13.2.1976 has also been produced by the respondents, which shows that the premises were purchased long time back. The Court, thus, found that the respondents have proved that they are Non-Resident Indians and owners of a shop for more than five years and that the averments made in the application for leave to contest, do not raise any triable issues. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller declined the application filed to contest the petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that each of the shops is a separate building and, therefore, the landlord is not entitled to seek ejectment of both the shops. It is argued that in terms of Section 13-B of the Act, the landlord is entitled to possession of one building, therefore, the order of ejectment, cannot be passed against the petitioner.
5. However, I am unable to agree with the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the application for leave to contest, the petitioners have not raised any dispute that each of the shops, is a separate building. Different site plans have been produced by the landlord and a pleading has been raised that both the shops are required to be demolished for construction of a show room for running the business of ready made garments. If the petitioner were to dispute that each of the shops, is an independent building in itself, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to seek leave to contest on the said ground and/or to produce prima facie documents in support of any such plea. In fact in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Sain 2005(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 492, it has been held that a heavy burden 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 Court would be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuineness and 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 landlord’s favour that the requirement of the occupation of the premises is a real and genuine.
6. The petitioners have not raised any objection before the learned Rent Controller that the shops let out to each of the petitioner, is a separate building. Such plea is in fact a determination of question of fact. Such fact was required to be substantiated by the sufficient documents before the same could be examined by the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the said argument.
7. Leaned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the respondents are neither the owners nor the landlords of the premises. The sale deed produced cannot be related to the premises in dispute and, therefore, the ejectment order at the instance of the respondents cannot be passed. Again the said argument is not tenable. In para No. 4 of the application seeking leave to contest the petition, the petitioners have admitted themselves to be in possession of the premises in dispute as tenants. There is no specific plea in the said application that the respondents are not the owners. Although in para No. 5 it is pleaded that one Gian Chand was previously the owner but such bald assertion is not sufficient denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The petitioners have not produced any document of title of shops in dispute either in respect of the respondents herein or Gian Chand or any other person. The petitioners have not even produced any Municipal record or any other document in support of their plea. Therefore, mere fact that the boundaries in the sale deeds Annexures P3 and P4 cannot be related to the present premises in dispute, are without any substance. The sale deeds are of the year 1976. Since considerable time has passed, the description of boundaries is bound to undergo change. Keepings in view the stand of the petitioners in the application and in the absence of an other document, I do not find any substance in the arguments raisel by the learned Counsel for petitioners.
8. It is further argued that the ejectment petition has been filed by the respondents through their power of attorney but the said power of attorney does not authorize the attorney to specifically seek ejectment the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. The power of attorney specifically authorizes the attorney to seek ejectment of the tenant. Once attorney has been authorised to seek ejectment of a tenant, it is wholly immaterial that the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act are not spfecifieally recited in attorney.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the respondents cannot be called Non Resident Indians and that they have no bona fide requirement in respect of the premises in dispute. It has been pleaded by the respondents that the tenants were inducted more than 15 years back. The property is alleged to be purchased in the year 1976. The passport reflected Loroya and Nangal as the places of birth of the respondents. It is not in dispute that both these places fall in India and in fact part of Punjab. Since the respondents are holding passport of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland having born in India, the respondents were rightly found to be Non Resident Indians and owners of the premises in dispute for a period of more than five years. Once these facts are proved, the bona fide requirement of the premises is presumed.
10. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
11. Hence, both the revision petitions are dismissed Petitions dismissed