Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs Ajit Singh on 29 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007)146PLR531
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J.
1. These three Civil Revisions bearing Nos. 1060 to 1062 of 2005 involve common questions of law and facts as the same have arisen out of an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the thrse tenants, to whom adjoining shops, which are part of one building, were rented out and all the three tenants have been ordered to be evicted by the learned Rent Controller vide orders dated 17.1.2005 on identical ground. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 1060 of 2005.
2. The respondent-landlord, who is Non-Resident Indian (for short "NRI"), residing in England, and is a "specified landlord" within the meaning of Section 13-B of the East Punjab' Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act") filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner for his eviction from a shop which was tented out @ Rs. 60/- per month. The eviction was sought on the ground that the respondent has retired from his employment in England and with a view to start his own business of furniture workshop and to settle down in India, he bona-fidely requires the premises for his personal use and occupation. The respondent averred that he has not taken possession of any such building from any other tenant under the Act.
3. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that Section 13-B of the Act was incorporated in the Act by Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001 reveals that the State Government having realized the plight of the NRIs, who, after long years abroad, were keen to return to India but were unable to get possession of their properties back on account of rigid existing rent laws, that an amendment in the Act was required "to provide relief to NRIs to enable them recover possession of a residential or scheduled building and /or one non-residential building for their own use."
4. Section 13-B of the Act provides that where an owner of a residential/scheduled/non-residential building is a NRI and returns to India and such building is required by him for his use or for his dependent, he may apply to the Rent Controller for immediate possession of such building. However, the right to apply in respect of such building has been made available only after five years from the date of becoming owner of such building and such a right can be exercised only once during the life time of such an owner. Further, an owner, after recovering possession of the building under this provision, is precluded from transferring 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.
5. Section 18-A of the Act provides "special procedure" for disposal of an application under Section 13-B of the Act. As per Sub-section (4) thereof, a tenant who has been duly served, shall have no right to contest the prayer for eviction unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Rent Controller. Under Sub-section (5), the Rent Controller can grant leave to contest to the tenant if the tenant, in his affidavit filed under Sub-section (4) discloses such facts as would disentitle the 'specified landlord' from obtaining an order for recovery of possession of the premises. However, even if the leave to contest is granted to the tenant, Sub-section (6) mandates that the hearing shall take place from day to day basis so that the eviction application is decided as early as possible.
6. In the present case, the petitioner-tenant, on receipt of notice of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act filed by the respondent as "specified landlord", filed an affidavit under Sub-section (4) of Section 18A and sought leave to contest, which was granted to him by the Rent Controller, Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply taking preliminary objections, inter-alia, with regard to locus standi, jurisdiction; no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties; the respondent does not fall within the ambit of NRI and/or specified landlord and that he has got other properties at Banga which are sufficient to start his proposed new business etc.
7. Learned Rent Controller, on the basis of documentary evidence comprising of municipal record (Ex.A2),copy of the sale deed (Mark X), the site plan duly sanctioned by the Municipal (Ex.A3) as well as revenue record consisting of jamabandis produced by the respondent, coupled with the oral evidence of the respondent himself (AW3), Rup Lal (AW2) and Gurcharan Singh (AW1), held that the respondent has proved himself to be the owner of the tenanted premises and as a necessary consequence, issue No. 2, as to whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, was also decided in his favour.
8. The Rent Controller, relying upon the certificate (Ex.A6) issued by M/s Bansal Trading Company of England, held that the respondent had retired from the service of the said Company on 11.7.2000 and has received his post-retiral benefits vide Ex.AS. The Controller also took notice of the admission made by the petitioner that the respondent has been residing in England for the last 25 years. Reliance was also placed upon the copy of passport of the respondent (Ex.A7) and thus it was concluded that he is a NRI.
9. As regards the maintainability of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, the Controller, vide his impugned order has categorically held the respondent is owner of the premises from last more than five years; there is not an iota of evidence led by the petitioner to suggest that he has got vacated any other premises as a specified landlord and/or otherwise. It was further held that since the respondent, after his retirement from England has decided to settle down in India in the evening of his life, there is nothing to suggest that his desire to get the premises vacated so as to start his own business to earn a source of livelihood, lacks bona-fide. The Rent Controller also noticed that there are sufficient in built safeguards in the Act and if it is found that the 'specified landlord' after getting the premises vacated, has failed to use the same for his personal necessity, its possession can be restrored back to the tenant. Consequently, the Rent Controller accepted the petition and ordered the petitioner's eviction from the demised premises.
10. I have heard Shri Sarwan Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikas Bahl, learned Counsel for the respondent and have gone through the impugned orders as well as the pleadings/evidence, copies of which were made available by them during the course of hearing.
11. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is unsustainable for more than one reasons. It is argued that the respondent, in the ejectment petition, did not specifically plead that he is owner of the demised premises; even while leading evidence, he has failed to establish his ownership qua the demised premises; he has also failed to prove his bona-fide personal necessity; and simultaneously, eviction of three tenants from three adjoining shops has been sought and since each shop constitutes a separate premises, three shops cannot be treated to be one building.
12. On the other had, Shri Bahl, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the documents on record conclusively prove that the respondent is now the exclusive owner of the demised premises which is comprising of three shops. According to Shri Bahl, it is admitted by the petitioner himself that the respondent has been residing in England from last 25 years and, thus, he is a NR1. It is, thus, contended that the respondent fulfills all the ingredients of Section 13-B, of the Act, therefore, no interference by this Court is called for in the impugned eviction order.
13. Before considering the rival submissions noticed above, it may be stated that notice of motion was issued by this Court on 22.02.2005 after noticing the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that "the view taken by this Court in the case of Sohan Lal v. Swaran Kaur 2003 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 407" is subject matter of consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. At the outset, it was brought to my notice that the afore mentioned matter has since been decided in favour of the landlords by the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, and Ors. connected cases reported as . While interpreting Section 13-B of the Act, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that a "specified landlord", namely, N.R.I. residing outside India, can also claim possession of the rented premises and all that is required under Section 13-B is that a N.R.I, should return to India and claim the premises for his use or for the use of his dependent living with him without requiring him to settled permanently in India. It has been held that once in a life time, the concession is given to a N.R.I. to get one building vacated in a summary manner, "subject to the conditions that he is required to prove that (i) he is a N.R.I.; (ii) has returned to India permanently or for a temporary period; (iii) requirement of accommodation is genuine; (iv) he is owner of the property from the last five years before institution of the proceedings.
14. Adverting to the first contention that the respondent, in his eviction petition, has not claimed himself to be owner of the demised premises, 1 have gone through the contents of the ejectment petition. It is true that instead of expression "owner", the respondent has used the expression "landlord". However, if one reads the entire petition, it is abundantly clear that the respondent sought eviction of, the petitioner in his capacity as a "specified landlord" under Section 13-B of the Act on the ground that he is a N.R.I.; after return from England, wants to settle down and start his furniture workshop in the shop in dispute as well as taco other adjoining shops. In support of his aforementioned plea, the respondent has produced on record a copy of the sale deed dated 29.3.1967 (Mark X) vide which a part of the building was purchased by him and by virtue of which he became co-owner thereof. There is hardly any serious dispute between the parties that the remaining part of the premises was purchased by the respondent's father (Sadhu Singh) vide a registered sale deed dated 29.9.1972 and the respondent had further purchased the said part from his father vide a registered sale deed dated 28.5.1997. In this manner, the respondent has become exclusive owner of the entire premises. Be that as it may, even being a co-owner of the premises on the strength of sale deed dated 29.3.1967, the respondent is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant under Section 13-B of the Act as held by this Court in the case of Assa Singh v. Charanjiv Singh Gulati 2004 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 660.
15. There is yet another as pect of the matter. It has come on record that the respondent's father has since died. As regards the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the petitioner him/self has admitted that he was inducted as a tenant by the respondent's father, namely, Sadhu Singh. Apart from the fact that the respondent has purchased the share in the property owned by his father vide a registered sale deed, the death of his father is also an admitted fact. Thus, by natural succession also, all the legal heirs of deceased Sadhu Singh including the respondent have become landlords qua the petitioner and it is well settled that an ejectment petition, by a co-landlord is also maintainable.
16. A feeble attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner to contend that in the revenue record one Amarjit Singh and Sadhu Singh shown as co-owners of the demised premises along with the respondent. It, however, stands clarified in the oral evidence that Amarjit Singh is none else than the respondent Ajit Singh who has been wrongly described by the revenue authorities. The Jamabandi was prior to the execution of the sale deed dated 7.8.5.1991 It, thus, fully supports the case of the respondent that at one point of the time he and his father were joint owners of the premises in dispute before he purchased his father's share through a registered sale deed.
17. So far as the petitioner's contention that the respondent has sought eviction of three tenants from three different shops and that each shop constitutes a separate premises, in my view there is no factual basis in support of this contention. From the site plan on record as well as oral evidence, there remains no doubt that there is only one building in which three shops have been built. The respondent has categorically pleaded and led evidence that he requires all the three shops to start his furniture workshop. Since the three shops are part of one building, the respondent is entitled to recover the possession of one entire building as expressly provided in Section 13-B of the Act.
18. No other point has been argued before me.
19. For the reasons seated above, I do not find any merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed with no orders a to costs.