Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarlochan Singh vs Harbhajan Kaur on 29 October, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.6570 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29th October, 2013
Tarlochan Singh
Petitioner
Versus
Harbhajan Kaur
Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 16.12.2009 of the Rent Controller whereby his eviction has been ordered from the demised premises in an application filed by the respondent under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rent Act') and order dated 14.05.2013 of the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal.
As per the averments made in the ejectment application, the property in dispute originally belonged to mother-in-law of the respondent and thereafter, devolved upon her legal heirs. Vide sale deed dated 19.02.1998 the respondent purchased it from other legal Singh Rattan Pal 2013.10.31 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court CR No.6570 of 2013 (O&M) 2 heirs. The petitioner was a tenant in the demised premises under the mother-in-law of the respondent. The respondent filed the instant application for ejectment of the petitioner under Section 13-B of the Rent Act claiming herself to be an NRI; further submitting that she required the premises for her use and occupation as she wants to permanently settled in India along with her husband in their old age.
Leave to contest was declined to the petitioner and his eviction was ordered vide order dated 27.10.2007. However, the aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court and the said order was set aside granting leave to defend to the petitioner with a further direction to the Rent Controller to dispose of the rent petition within a period of six months.
The petitioner filed written statement raising various objections. He also raised an objection submitting that Tarjinder Singh, one of the co-sharers of the suit property, never executed any attorney in favour of Surjit Singh husband of the respondent for execution of the sale deed in her favour and thus, the sale deed relied upon by her could not be made the basis for holding that she was the owner of the suit property. Another objection was taken to the effect that the property in question was being used by him for commercial purposes and the respondent has no right to seek ejectment of the petitioner.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek the ejectment under Section 13-B as alleged? OPA Singh Rattan Pal 2013.10.31 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court CR No.6570 of 2013 (O&M) 3
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPA
3. Whether the petitioner is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the instant petition? OPR
4. Whether the site plan appended with the petition is incorrect, if so its effect? OPR
5. Whether no cause of action has ever accrued to the petitioner to file the instant petition? OPR
6. Whether the petition qua seeking partial ejectment is not permissible, if so its effect? OPR
7. Relief.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence, the Rent Controller allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to vacate the demised premises.
Aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 14.05.2013 holding that the respondent was an NRI who wants to come back to India to settle here and was owner of the suit property for more than five years and the property in question was required by her for her own use and occupation. The said order dated 14.05.2013 is also under challenge before this Court.
At this stage, it may be noticed that learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that against an order passed under the provisions of Section 13-B read with Section 18-A of the Rent Act, no remedy of appeal is provided against the order of eviction, and Singh Rattan Pal 2013.10.31 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court CR No.6570 of 2013 (O&M) 4 therefore, the appeal before the Appellate Authority was not maintainable.
Be that as it may, the question before this Court is as to whether eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises has been ordered under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Rent Act rightly and in accordance with law?
At the outset, it may further be noticed that learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the respondent is an NRI and is a co-sharer of the suit property. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is also not in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner further could not dispute that even an NRI co-sharer can maintain a petition for ejectment of the tenant on behalf of the other co-sharer(s) also. In view thereof, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that there was no authority with husband of the respondent namely Surjit Singh to sell the share of Tarjinder Singh, her brother-in-law, is of no significance; and thus, it could not be disputed that the respondent also fulfills the condition of being owner of the suit property for the last more than five years prior to filing of the petition.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that need of the respondent-landlady has not been proved on record. However, it may be noticed that the respondent has specifically pleaded her requirement for the property in dispute. Moreover, if an NRI landlord fulfills the condition, as required under Section 13-B of the Rent Act, a presumption of genuineness of necessity of such landlord has to be drawn and the same can be Singh Rattan Pal 2013.10.31 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court CR No.6570 of 2013 (O&M) 5 rebutted only by strong evidence. In the instant case, even the petitioner has failed to step into the witness box to face cross- examination. There is no other evidence to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the respondent-landlady.
In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in the instant revision petition.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE October 29, 2013 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2013.10.31 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court