JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - The petition for eviction was filed under Section 13-A contending that the petitioner, who was a resident at Delhi was contemplating to shift from Delhi to Ludhiana in view of the peculiar political situation of unsafety of residents of Delhi in 1984. The respondents 2 to 4 were said to be co-owners of the property. The eviction was sought against the first respondent only. The first respondent obtained leave to defend and contended, inter alia, that the petitioner was not his landlord and he also contended that the certificate produced by the landlord did not secure proof that he was also competent to remove him from service in the manner contemplated under Section 13-A. It was also contended that the landlord had already filed a petition for eviction in respect of another portion of the building and had also secured eviction against another tenant. Relying on a judgment rendered by this Court that a petition under Section 13-A would be filed only once in respect of one tenant, it was contended that the petition itself was not maintainable. At the trial, the tenant give up his defence that the petitioner was not his landlord. While examining two other such defences taken by the tenant, the Court found that the petition for eviction must fail on the grounds urged by the tenant. I have not been shown through any provision which allowed for reliance of the petitioner on a certificate issued by one Shri Chattopadhyay. After three decades, the landlord has not improved the contentions to show as to how the certificate could be relied on. I have also not been shown any proposition taking a different view than it has to be dealt with by the Rent Controller by its reference to the judgment of this Court in Sohan Lal Versus Prem Singh Grewal and others- 1989 HRR 200. The dismissal of the petition of the landlord cannot be found to be unjustified. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, 2nd respondent has been transposed as the 2nd petitioner, who claimed a similar status of a person in Government service, who was requiring the premise for his own purpose. This petition has been ordered on 15.11.1994. A mere transposition cannot avail to the 2nd petitioner to contend that the grounds required under law have been established. This petition has been ordered on 15.11.1994. A mere transposition cannot avail to the 2nd petitioner to contend that the grounds required under law have been established. If the 2nd petitioner as a co-owner of the premises has any contention to urge that he requires the premises, it has to be independently established. Since he has been brought on record by the orders of the Court, the case would require to be re-examined in the light of the subsequent event of the transposition of one of the respondents as the 2nd petitioner. I will make it clear that the requirement of the first petitioner cannot be urged any longer. The case would require a consideration only of the requirement of the 2nd petitioner. The Rent Controller shall, therefore, serve notice to the first respondent afresh and take an adjudication in accordance with law. The order is set aside and is remitted to the Rent Controller at Ludhiana. 3. The revision is disposed of on the above terms. 4. Parties to appear before the Rent Controller at Ludhaina on 29.08.2012. ---------0.B.S.0------------