Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satwant Singh vs Ram Kumar Sharma on 20 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006
2023:PHHC:056006 Page 1 of 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
110 CR-452-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.04.2023
Satwant Singh
...Pe00oner(s)
Vs.
Ram Kumar Sharma
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Argued By:- Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate for the pe oner.
None for the respondent.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-23327-CII-2017 This is an applica on under Sec on 151 CPC seeking exemp on from filing cer fied copy of Annexure A1 and placing on record typed copies of the same.
A)er going through the contents of the applica on, the same is allowed subject to all just excep ons. MAIN CASE Present Revision Pe on has been filed by the landlord challenging order dated 15.10.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby ejectment applica on No.10500099/2007 filed by the pe oner/landlord under Sec on 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric on Act, 1949 (hereina)er referred to as "the Act") for ejectment of respondent/tenant from "Shop No.1 situated in abadi village Kingra, Tehsil 1 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 2 of 18 and district Jalandhar, Bagri Complex, Main Road, Mithapur, Jalandhar"
(hereina)er referred to as "the demised shop"), has been dismissed.
2. It is inter alia, submi=ed by learned counsel for the pe oner:
a) that the pe oner is a Non-Resident Indian and had come to India to se=le his son. The pe oner is owner of the demised shop. The building where the demised shop is situated is a non-residen al-
cum-commercial building. The demised shop was let out to the respondent/tenant vide Rent Note dated 10.3.2006 (Ex.R-2/Annexure A-1/T) at a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-. However, as the respondent failed to make payment of rent since March, 2007, and as the pe oner required the demised shop for se=ling his son who wanted to run his own business from the demised shop, the pe oner filed present ejectment pe on against the respondent on grounds of arrears of rent, as also personal necessity;
b) that as per Sale Deed dated 27.02.1991 (Mark A), it is clear that pe oner was owner of the demised shop for more than five years prior to filing of the ejectment pe on. Upon issuance of no ce of mo on, respondent/tenant appeared and filed wri=en statement contes ng ejectment pe on on various grounds, to which the pe oner duly filed rejoinder.
c) that on the basis of pleadings of the par es, learned Rent Controller framed following issues on 06.01.2010:-
2 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 3 of 18
1. Whether pe oner is NRI and is owner of property for the last more than five years? OPP
2. Whether shop in dispute is required by pe oner for his use and occupa on? OPP
3. Whether respondent is in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month since March, 2007. If so, its effect? OPP
4. Whether correct site plan has not been produced by the pe oner? OPR
5. Whether pe oner has no locus standi to file the present pe on? OPR
6. Relief.
d) that vide the impugned order the learned Rent Controller has dismissed ejectment pe on of the landlord/pe oner primarily on following grounds:-
i) that the pe oner has failed to prove his ownership of the demised shop for more than five years before filing the present pe on and that is fatal blow to the case set up by the pe oner in the pe on regarding ejectment of respondent from demised shop;
ii) that pe oner had failed to prove bona fide requirement of the premises in ques on as, son of the pe oner was already working with him in the shop at Germany; and
iii) that pe oner was owner of other shops in the vicinity.
3 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 4 of 18
e) that above said findings of the learned Rent Controller are contrary to the record and therefore, liable to be rejected. It is submi=ed that from the Sale Deed dated 27.02.1991 (Mark A), it is evident that the pe oner had been owner of the premises since 1991. Learned Rent Controller has totally misread the evidence on record to hold that property men oned in the jamabandi (Mark B), sale deed dated 27.02.1991 (Mark A), and the one men oned in the rent note, in the head note and in para 1 of the ejectment pe on, are different and are not one and the same property. It is submi=ed that rela onship of landlord-tenant between the pe oner and respondent has been candidly admi=ed by the respondent and therefore, there can be no dispute regarding ownership of pe oner over the demised shop;
f) that as regards bona fide requirement of the pe oner, it is submi=ed that the need of the pe oner is very much genuine as he wants to se=le his son(s) in India who is currently working with him in Germany. It is submi=ed that the learned Rent Controller has rejected his claim in this respect on the purely spurious reasoning that the pe oner had failed to place on record any applica on made by the pe oner to the Authori es in Germany regarding se=ling his son in India;
g) that the above said reasoning of the learned Rent Controller is erroneous as under Sec on 13-B of the Act, there is no such requirement which mandates the pe oner to produce such record as sought by the learned Rent Controller. In support, learned counsel relies upon judgment of this Court in CR-348 of 2016 tled as "Harjit Singh Vs. Harcharan Singh" Law Finder Doc ID # 1916127;
4 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 5 of 18
h) that as regards finding of learned Tribunal that pe oner is owner of other shops in the vicinity and is therefore, not en tled to ejectment as sought for, it is submi=ed that as evident from site plan (Exhibit R1), all the said other shops are situated in one and the same building. It is submi=ed that as per three-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010 (9) SC 452 Swami Nath Vs. Nirmal Singh it has been held that geJng one unit vacated in a building would not amount to exhaus ng right granted under Sec on 13-B of the Act, and that such an interpreta on "to the proviso to Sec on 13-B(1) of the 1949 Act would lead to an absurd situa on which was not contemplated by the legislature while introducing the provisions of Sec on 13-B by way of amendment in 2001."
i) that accordingly, learned Rent Controller was in error on all the three counts in rejec ng the ejectment pe on filed by the pe oner/landlord.
3. No other argument is raised on behalf of the pe oner.
4. Upon perusal of the record of the case order sheets show that on last two dates i.e. 19.02.2020 and 24.01.2023, ma=er was adjourned at request of learned counsel/proxy counsel appearing for the respondent. On 24.01.2023, it was made clear to the proxy counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent, that as this is a Revision Pe on of the year 2013, no further adjournment shall be granted. However, even today, even in the second round, there is no 5 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 6 of 18 representa on on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, respondent is being proceeded against ex-parte.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the pe oner and with his able assistance perused the file as also lower Court record in detail.
6. In the present case, it is not disputed that pe oner is an NRI as defined under Sec on 2(dd) of the Act and was therefore, competent to file ejectment pe on under Sec on 13-B of the Act. Requirements under Sec on 13-B are as follows:-
"13-B. Right to recover immediate possession of residen al building or scheduled building and/or non-residen al building to accrue to Non-resident Indian. (1) Where an owner is a Non- Resident Indian and returns to India and the residen al building or scheduled building and/or non-residen al 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 sec on, shall be available only a0er 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 me of such an owner. (2) Where the owner referred to in sub-sec on (1), has let out more than one residen al building or scheduled building and/or non-residen al building, it shall be open to him or her to make an applica on under that sub-sec on in respect of only one residen al building or one scheduled building and/or one non- residen al building, each chosen by him or her. (3) Where an owner recovers possession of a building under this sec on, he or she shall not transfer it through sale or any other means or let it out before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building, failing which, 6 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 7 of 18 the evicted tenant may apply to the Controller for an order direc ng that he shall be restored the possession of the said building and the Controller shall make an order accordingly."
7. The above provision confers right to recover immediate possession to NRI landlords under special mechanism of Sec on 13-B and Sec on 18-A of the Act. However, in the present case, the landlord has been languishing which makes a mockery of legisla ve right granted to him under Sec on 13-B of the Act. It is accordingly, in these extenua ng circumstances that respondent is being proceeded against ex-parte in the present case as the record/order sheets reveal that a somewhat casual and cavalier approach has been adopted on part of the respondent in pursuing this present pe on.
8. A perusal of impugned order shows that learned Rent Controller has dismissed the pe oner's ejectment pe on on the ground that:
8(A) Ownership of the pe oner over the demised shop for the last more than five years before filing of the present pe on, is not proven as "pe oner has miserably failed to connect the property men oned in the head note of the pe on with the sale deed as well as jamabandi Mark-A and Mark-B respec vely". Finding of the learned Rent Controller in this respect is contained in Para 16 of the impugned order and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"16. In order to prove his ownership over property in ques on, pe oner has placed on file copy of jamabandi Mark-B. He has also placed on file photocopy of sale deed dated 27.02.1991 Mark- A. Perusal of both these documents shows that these documents i.e. sale deed Mark A and jamabandi Mark-B pertains to property
7 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 8 of 18 situated at Vill. Khingra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, bearing Khasra No.5122/3839 (11-3) whereas, perusal of head note of the pe on shows that premises in ques on are situated at Bagri Complex, Main Road, Mithapur, Jalandhar. Similar is the posi on in para No.1 of the pe on, where it has been pleaded that property in ques on is situated in the abadi of Mithapur, Jalandhar. Perusal of documentary evidence led by pe oner shows that no document has been placed on file by the pe oner from which it could be presumed that property in ques on, as fully detailed in the head note of the pe on, is owned by pe oner, which is situated within the abadi of Mithapur, Jalandhar. Otherwise also, pe oner has miserably failed to connect the property men oned in the head note of the pe on with the sale deed as well as jamabandi Mark-A and Mark-B respec vely. So, one of the most essen al ingredient of Sec on 13-B of the Act goes un-proved on the file regarding ownership of premises in ques on for the last more than 5 years before the filing of present pe on and that is fatal blow to the case set up by the pe oner in the pe on regarding ejectment of respondent from demised shop." (Emphasis supplied) 8(A)(i) In my view, above said findings of learned Rent Controller are wholly misconceived and based on a piecemeal misreading of evidence on record; inasmuch in this regard the learned Rent Controller has totally ignored the wri ng in the Rent Note dated 10.3.2006 Ex.R-2/Annexure A-1, and has thus, arrived at the above incorrect conclusion.
In the sale deed dated 27.02.1991 (Mark-A) as also in the Jamabandi (Mark B), the property in ques on is described as "Village Kingra, Tehsil Jalandhar bearing khasra No.5122/3839 (11-3)";
8 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 9 of 18 In Rent Note (Ex.R-2) demised shop has been described therein as "Shop No.1 situated in abadi Village Kingra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, Bagri Complex, Main Road, Mithapur, Jalandhar";
The Head note of the pe on shows that demised shop has been described therein as "Shop No.1 situated in Bagri Complex at Main Road, Mithapur, Jalandhar".
Thus, a harmonious reading of all of the above three recita ons, shows that the common connec ng address contained in the 3 documents in respect of the demised shop is 'Village Kingra, Bagri Complex, Main Mithapur Road, Tehsil & District Jalandhar'. In arriving at the impugned conclusion that "pe oner has miserably failed to connect the property men oned in the head note of the pe on with the sale deed as well as jamabandi Mark-A and Mark-B respec vely", the learned Rent Controller has ignored the inter-linking wri ng contained in the Rent Note dated 10.03.2006 (Ex.R-2/Annexure A-1) wherein demised premises is shown situate at both Village Kingra and Bagri Complex. Thus, abovesaid conclusion of the learned Rent Controller is factually incorrect, being based on a piecemeal reading of the evidence on record. 8(A)(ii) It therefore follows, that the conclusion of the learned Rent Controller that the pe oner did not own the demised shop for five years prior to filing of present pe on is also contrary to the record as, admi=edly, registered Sale Deed dated 28.02.1991; document No.10638 (Mark A), pertaining to the land where the demised premises is situate, is of the year 1991. Therefore, the pe oner was clearly owner of the demised premises since 1991.
9 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 10 of 18 8(A)(iii) Furthermore, in this regard vital piece of evidence is contained in the evidence led by the pe oner, in par cular the cross-examina on of the pe oner as PW2 available at page 73 of the LCR which shows that it is the categoric asser on of the pe oner therein that "The property in dispute was constructed in the year 1991/92. There are 23 shops. I have sold the two shops out of the total shops. ...". From the above evidence, in fact, as put to the pe oner by the respondent himself, the pe oner had specifically explained that he had constructed the property in dispute in the year 1991-92. Thus, to my mind the only ra onal conclusion that follows is that the on the land situated in village Kingra bought by the pe oner vide Sale Deed dated 27.02.1991, the pe oner had constructed the 23 shops/developed Bagri Complex in 1991 itself, of which Shop No.1 was let out to the respondent in 2006. In my view, when the evidence is considered together in a coherent manner, the conclusions of the learned Rent Controller cannot be sustained. In fact, it has not been disputed by the respondent-tenant himself that the sale deed Mark A does not pertain to the demised premises.
It is also important to note that perusal of the evidence shows that not even a sugges on was put to the pe oner that the registered Sale Deed dated 28.02.1991; Document No.10638 (Mark A), does not pertain to the demised premises. Thus, pe oner was granted no opportunity to explain/refute the abovesaid conclusion drawn by the Rent Controller.
8(A)(iv) Even otherwise, in this regard learned Rent Controller has erred in ignoring the fact that in the Rent Note dated 10 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 11 of 18 10.03.2006/Ex. R-2/Annexure A-1/T, the respondent-tenant has admi=ed the ownership of the pe oner in respect of the demised premises. Even the factum of tenancy in respect of the demised premises has not been denied by the respondent-tenant. Learned Rent Controller has noted in Para 17 of the impugned order that rela onship of landlord-tenant is admi=ed by respondent. Thus, when the documentary evidence, including the Sale Deed Mark A and Rent Note Ex.R-2, are read together, the unassailable conclusion that follows is that the pe oner was owner of the demised premises since 1991 i.e. for more than 5 years prior to filing of the Rent Pe on.
8(A)(v) In this regard, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2014 (16) SCC 472 Kamaljit Singh Vs. Sarabjit Singh is relevant, wherein it has been held that where jural rela onship of tenant and landlord admi=edly existed between the par es, and respondent-tenant did not surrender possession of demised premises in his occupa on, in such cases, tenant could not ques on tle of the landlord to that property, and Courts below had erred in holding that landlord was obliged to prove his tle to the property. In the present case also, it is not the respondent's case that pe oner was not owner of demised shop. 8(B) The second ground on which the Learned Rent Controller has rejected the pe oner's ejectment applica on is that the pe oner has not been able to prove his bona fide requirement of demised shop. Findings in this regard are recorded in para 17 of the impugned order:-
"17........He further admiCed that he is having two sons and same are of the age of 18 years and 15 years. His elder son namely
11 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 12 of 18 Manjinder Singh studied upto 10th class and has now le0 the study. He further admiCed that his son Manjinder Singh is also siDng and working in the shop alongwith him and he is doing cloth business in Germany. He further admiCed that he has not moved any applica on before Government of Germany regarding the fact that he wants to seCle his son in India in order to start the business of cloth in demised premises. All these admissions made by P.W.2 Satwant Singh goes a long way in order to disprove the case of pe oner and in order to support the conten on of respondent that premises in ques on are neither bonafide required by pe oner for his own use and occupa on nor for the use of his son, because as per above men oned admissions of P.W.2, his son is already working with him in the shop at Germany."
In my view, the fact that the son of the pe oner is presently working with him in Germany, does not preclude the pe oner from wan ng to se=le his sons in India in the long-term, and cannot be made a ground to disbelieve the bona fide requirement of the pe oner. Moreover, even the reasoning of the learned Rent Controller that pe oner "has not moved any applica on before Government of Germany regarding the fact that he wants to seCle his son in India in order to start the business of cloth in demised premises" is misplaced as, under the law there is no such requirement for such record to be produced. In my view, above said reasoning of learned Rent Controller is prima facie erroneous in view of the fact that there is no requirement under Sec on 13-B of the Act for the pe oner to move an applica on before the Government of Germany to seek permission to se=le his son in India. Pe oner has pleaded his bona fide requirement which is duly supported by an affidavit and therefore, pe oner was not required to bring or produce any record from Germany in this respect. In this regard, following 12 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 13 of 18 observa ons made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2005 (12) SCC 778 Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini are relevant:
"18. From the aforesaid decisions the requirement of the landlord of the suit accommoda on is to be established as a genuine need and not a pretext to get the accommoda on vacated. The provisions of Sec ons 18-A (4) and (5) concede to the tenant's right to defend the proceedings ini ated under Sec on 13-B showing that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine or bona fide. The legisla ve intent for seDng up of a special procedure for NRI landlords is obvious from the legisla ve text which has been deliberately designed making dis nc on between the ordinary landlords and special category of landlords. The Controller's power to give leave to contest the applica on filed under Sec on 13-B is restricted by the condi on that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disen tle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession. It is needless to say that in the summary proceedings the tenant's right to contest the applica on would be restricted to the parameters of Sec on 13-B of the Act. He cannot widen the scope of his defence by relying on any other fact which does not fall within the parameters of Sec on 13-B. The tenant's defence is restricted and cannot go beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act applicable to the NRI landlord. Under Sec on 13-B the landlord is en tled to evic on if he requires the suit accommoda on for his or her use or the use of the dependent, who ordinarily lives with him or her. The requirement would necessarily have to be genuine or bona fide requirement and it cannot be said that although the requirement is not genuine or bona fide, he would be en tled to the ejectment of the tenant nor can it be said that in no circumstances will the tenant not be allowed to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine or bona fide. A tenant's right to defend the claim of the landlord under Sec on 13-B for ejectment would arise if the tenant could be able to show that the landlord in the proceedings is not an NRI landlord; that he is not the owner thereof or that his ownership is not for the required period of five
13 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 14 of 18 years before the ins tu on of proceedings and that the landlord's requirement is not bona fide."
8(C) The third ground on which the learned Rent Controller has rejected the pe oner's evic on pe on is that it has been proven on record that pe oner owns other shops.
From the discussion hereinabove, it is established that demised shop is situated in the same building where other 23/25 shops are situated. In this regard, the site plan (Exhibit R1) produced by the tenant himself, is very relevant, which is available at page 181 of the LCR which shows that demised shop, along with several other/25 other shops, is part of one building namely "Bagri Shopping Complex". 8(C)(i) The provision, specifically sub-sec on 2 of Sec on 13-B is very clear, whereby it is open to the landlord to "to make an applica on under that sub-sec on in respect of only one residen al building or one scheduled building and/or one non-residen al building, each chosen by him or her." Thus, it is open to the pe oner to seek evic on of the respondent from the demised premises, even though he is owner of other shops in the same building.
8(C)(ii) Reliance may be placed on judgment of this Court in CR-348 of 2016 tled as "Harjit Singh Vs. Harcharan Singh" Law Finder Doc ID # 1916127 wherein it has been held as follows:-
"A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restric on Act, 1949, Sec on 13B - Non
- Resident Indian - Order of evic on - Bonafide necessity - Proof of
- Tenant already protected under other related provisions of Act, if NRI landlord gets property vacated for malafide reasons - Provisions to ensure bona-fides in ac on by NRI landlord against tenant, as were considered appropriate b legisla on, are contained
14 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 15 of 18 in Sec on 13-B of Act itself which en tles tenant to get possession of property back in case of landlord lets out property to anybody else within period of 5 years - Hence, plea the NRI landlord required to prove bona-fides in ac on against tenant misconceived. B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restric on Act, 1949, Sec on 13B - Non Resident Indian- Order of evic on - Plea of non disclosure of other proper es - Held, fact that NRI owns other proper es, no bar for NRI to file evic on pe on - Therefore, even in exercise of any inherent powers, Court or as statutory authority Rent Controller; cannot dismiss pe on merely on ground that landlord not filed pe on with clean hands - Hence, order of evic on upheld."
(Emphasis supplied) 8(C)(iii) Reliance may also be placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 2010 (9) SCC 452 Swami Nath Vs. Nirmal Singh wherein it has been held as follows:-
"6. Similar submissions were advanced by the pe oner in Special Leave Pe on (Civil) No.8317 of 2006 before the High Court. In addi on, it was urged that under the provisions of Sec on 13-B, the landlord was en tled to exercise his right of op on for immediate possession only once and that having obtained vacant possession of a shop room in the building in ques on, such right had been exhausted and the landlord was no longer en tled to immediate possession as contemplated in Sec on 13-B of the 1949 Act. It was sought to be urged that a shop room in a building would have to be treated as a separate unit or building for the purposes of Sec on 13-B of the above Act as otherwise the very object of Sec on 13-B would be frustrated as the landlord would have to approach the court repeatedly for obtaining possession of different parts of the building, which was not contemplated in the said sec on."
9. It was also urged that the provisions of sub-sec on (1) of Sec on 13-B would have to be read in a manner so as not to defeat the main purpose and object of the Act. It was submiCed that recourse could, therefore, be had to the provisions of Sec on 15 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 16 of 18 13-B only once which would support the theory that each shop room or other premises in the building would have to be treated as a separate unit and the landlord would be en tled to make a choice as to which of the units he wished to take possession of immediately. It was submiCed that in these cases, since the landlord had already obtained possession of a por on of the building, it must be deemed that he had exhausted his op on as given under Sec on 13-B and in order to evict the other tenants from the premises in ques on, he would have to file regular evic on pe ons before the Rent Controller concerned, who would have to deal with the same in the regular manner without resor ng to the emergency provisions of Sec on 13-B of the 1949 Act.
13. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini where the same ques on had come up for considera on and it was observed that on a plain reading of the provisions of Sec on 13-B, it would be obvious that once in a life me possession is given to an NRI to get one building vacated in a summary manner. It was also submiCed that the ownership of the respondent landlord in respect of only one building had not been disputed by the pe oners and the only conten on that was raised on their behalf was that each separate tenancy in a building would amount to a separate unit and a0er exhaus ng the right of summary possession once, it was no longer available to the NRI landlord to exercise such an op on for the second me to a par cular building, which conten on had been negated by the courts below.
14. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respec ve par es and we are unable to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the pe oners. The interpreta on sought to be given to the proviso to Sec on 13-B(1) of the 1949 Act would lead to an absurd situa on which was not contemplated by the legislature while introducing the provisions of Sec on 13-B by way of amendment in 2001. The very object of the amendment would be frustrated if the narrow and constricted 16 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 17 of 18 meaning being canvassed on behalf of the pe oners is to be accepted.
15. The provisions of Sec on 13-B of the 1949 Act have been correctly interpreted and dealt with in Baldev Singh Bajwa case and in that view of the maCer, the special leave pe ons must fail and are dismissed. IA No.2 of 2006 filed in SLP © No.11719 of 2006 by Gurdeep Ram to be impleaded as party in his personal capacity, is also disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs." (Emphasis supplied) 8(C)(iv) Moreover, it is well-se=led proposi on of law that it is not open to the tenant to dictate terms and condi ons to the landlord, and the landlord is the best judge of his own needs. In this regard, reference may be made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 2021 (2) Scale 333 Law Finder Doc id # 1800986 Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh & Another wherein it has been held that tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord. Head note of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"East Punjab Urban Rent Restric on Act, 1949, Sec on 2(dd) and Sec on 13B read with Sec on 18A - Evic on - Bona fide requirement of NRI landlord - Leave to contest - Genuine need of appellants to secure vacant possession of premises for proposed business found to be established - Adequacy or otherwise of space available with landlord for business not for tenant to dictate - Special procedure for NRI landlord deliberately designed by Legislature to speedily secure possession of tenanted premises for bona fide need of NRI landlords and such legisla ve intent to confer right of summary evic on, as a one me measure cannot be frustrated without strong reason - Held, tenants failed to provide adequate reason to secure right to contest summary proceedings and they should not be allowed to widen scope of 17 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006 2023:PHHC:056006 Page 18 of 18 limited defense under Sec on 13B - Hence, rejec on of leave to contest applica on upheld."
9. It has also been stated by respondent in his wri=en statement to the ejectment pe on that need of the pe oner is not genuine. It has been further stated therein that, "the pe oner does not require the demised property for his personal use and occupa on; rather the pe oner wants to re-let the same at higher rate a0er geDng the same vacated from the respondent." In my view, said defense of the respondent is misconceived as sub-sec on 3 of Sec on 13B imposes a restric on on the landlord that he shall not transfer through sale or any other means or lease out the ejected premises before the expiry of period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. In the event of breach of any of the condi ons of sub-sec on 3 of Sec on 13-B of the Act, the tenant is given right of restora on of possession of the said building. It is thus, clear that landlord is prohibited from transferring or leJng out the demised shop for a period of five years a)er geJng the same vacated from present tenant.
10. Accordingly, in view of the discussion hereinabove, the present Revision Pe on is allowed, and the impugned order dated 15.10.2012 is set aside.
11. Pending applica on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
(Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
20.04.2023
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056006
18 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 07:13:32 :::