Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanta Devi And Another vs Mehta Singh And Another on 25 November, 2009
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6591 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 25.11.2009
Kanta Devi and another .....Petitioners
versus
Mehta Singh and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the respondents.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
ORDER
Surya Kant, J.
This revision petition is directed by the tenants against the eviction order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara in an eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short `the Act'), in respect of the house bearing Municipal No.B-XXXVIII/156, Gali No.7, situated at Khera road, Phagwara.
[2] The respondent sought eviction of the petitioners summarily under Section 13-B of the Act, from the above-stated demised premises, inter-alia, averring that he is Non-Resident Indian-owner-cum-landlord of C.R. No.6591 of 2007 (O&M) 2 the demised premises for a period of more than 5 years and since he requires the demised premises for his own personal use and occupation as he has returned to permanently settle down in India, the petitioner-tenants are liable to be evicted from the same. The respondent elaborated that the subject house was constructed and owned by his father-Bakhshish Singh son of Rattan Singh, who had inducted late Ved Parkash, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners as a tenant on payment of Rs.25/- as monthly rent. It was further averred that after the death of his father-Bakhshish Singh, the respondent had become the owner of the house and is entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner-tenants as he requires the demised premises for his own personal use and occupation. The respondent further averred that he has is a retired person and is presently staying in village Nihalgarh after returning India.
[3] Upon notice, the petitioners moved an application for leave to contest and denied that the father of the respondent was ever the owner of the house in dispute or after his death, the respondent had become its owner. It was alleged that late Bakhshish Singh has left more than one legal heirs, therefore also the respondent could not claim exclusive ownership of the demised premises.
[4] The Rent Controller vide his order dated 21.9.2004, granted leave to contest to the petitioner-tenants. Thereafter, they filed the written statement and contested the eviction petition on the grounds that: (1) the respondent is a British citizen and is not a Non-Resident Indian; (ii) the respondent did not let out the house to late Ved Parkash and is not entitled C.R. No.6591 of 2007 (O&M) 3 to seek their eviction; (iii) there is no relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties; (iv) the respondent has several other properties including the agricultural land and two houses in village Nihalgarh which is just 5-6 Kms. from Phagwara Town. He also owns other properties within the municipal limits of Phagwara, and (v) the property in dispute does not bear the khasra no.5145/3083/0-9 min vide jamabandi for the year 1985-86 as claimed by the respondent and even Bakhshish Singh his father was not its owner.
[5] The petitioners further averred that earlier Smt.Gian Kaur wife of the respondent wanted to dispossess the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, forcing him to file a suit for permanent injunction against said Smt.Gian Kaur and one Bittu and that the eviction petition has also been filed only to harass them.
[6] The respondent filed a rejoinder reiterating that he is the owner of the demised premises which was originally owned by his father- late Bakhshish Singh and who had executed a valid Will dated 13.2.1967 bequeathing all the movable and immovable properties including the demised premises to him. It was explained that late Bakhshish Singh died on 12.11.1988 and since then, the respondent is the exclusive owner of the demised premises. It was also asserted that the house(s) owned by the respondent in village Nihalgarh are in dilapidated condition and are not fit for human habitation. The respondent asserted that presently he is living with his relatives and needs the demised premises for his own personal use, which is situated in the urban area.
C.R. No.6591 of 2007 (O&M) 4[7] In order to prove his case, the respondent himself entered the witness box (AW1) and examined four other witnesses. He has also brought on record the documents in support of his various pleas. As against it, the petitioner No.1 appeared as RW-1 in support of the petitioners' case.
[8] The Rent Controller, Phagwara, after considering the entire evidence, has allowed the eviction petition vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2007, giving rise to this revision petition.
[9] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the summoned records.
[10] The following questions require for consideration, namely (i) as to whether or not the respondent is owner of the demised premises? (ii) whether he is a non-resident-Indian? and (iii) whether he needs the demised premises for his own use and occupation?
OWNERSHIP [11] In order to prove his ownership, the respondent-landlord has placed on record a certified copy of the plaint dated 30.1.1996 in a suit for permanent injunction which was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Ved Parkash, against the wife of the respondent and her nephew. In para No.1 of the plaint, late Ved Parkash had specifically admitted that the demised premises was owned by Bakhshish Singh son of Rattan Singh @ Bhagat Singh till November, 1988 and "after his death, his son Mehta Singh is the owner/landlord of the said building". In para No.2 of the plaint, late Ved Parkash had also admitted himself to be a tenant in C.R. No.6591 of 2007 (O&M) 5 the demised-premises at a rent of Rs.25/- per month under Bakhshish Singh-father of the respondent and after the death of Bakhshish Singh, under the respondent. The said civil suit was decreed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners by the Civil Court, Phagwara, vide the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1997 (Ex.A-5), whereby the wife of the respondent-landlord and her nephew, their agents, servants, attorneys, employees etc., were restrained from forcibly, illegally and unlawfully dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioners from the demised premises, [12] The fact that their predecessor-in-interest, deceased Ved Parkash, had filed the above stated civil suit, has been candidly admitted by petitioner No.1 in her deposition. The petitioners are, thus, estopped by their act and conduct from questioning the admitted title of the respondent qua the house in dispute. In addition, the respondent has placed on record a copy of the jamabandi (Ex.A-3) to prove the ownership of his father. He has also brought on record the Will dated 13.2.1967 (Ex.A-4) whereby his father had bequeathed all his immovable properties in favour of the respondent. The death certificate of the father of the respondent has also been brought on record (Ex.A-2). In the light of the above mentioned overwhelming evidence on record, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners that the respondent is not the owner of the demised premises. STATUS OF THE RESPONDENT AS A NON-RESIDENT-INDIAN [13] The petitioners in their application for leave to contest as well as in the written statement themselves have averred that the respondent is a C.R. No.6591 of 2007 (O&M) 6 British citizen. The respondent has placed on record a copy of his passport (Ex.A7) issued by the High Commission of India, London, in which it is categorically mentioned that his place of birth is village Nihalgarh, District Kapurthala. The respondent has also placed on record, the identity card issued by the NRI Sabha, Punjab i.e., the office of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division (Ex.A-8). It stands established beyond any doubt that the respondent has been living in England and is of Indian origin. The statement of the respondent that he had been serving in England and has now retired, has also gone unrebutted. The respondent, thus, has proved himself to be a Non-Resident-Indian in terms of the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa versus Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778.
WHETHER THE RESPONDENT REQUIRES THE DEMISED PREMISES FOR HIS OWN USE AND OCCUPATION?.
[14] In Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra), it has been ruled that under the special provision of Section 13-B, there is a statutory presumption of genuineness and bonafide behind the need expressed by a Non-Resident-Indian-landlord for the premises owned by him, unless rebutted by the tenant by producing some strong and cogent evidence at the time of seeking leave to contest itself. The petitioner-tenants have controverted the need expressed by the respondent for the demised premises claiming that as and when he comes to India, the respondent resides in village Nihalgarh where he already owns two houses. On the other hand, the respondent's categoric case is that his houses in village Nihalgarh are very old, dilapidated and not livable. The petitioners have C.R. No.6591 of 2007 (O&M) 7 furnished no particulars of any residential house owned by the respondent within the urban area of Phagwara. They have led no evidence except the bald and unsupported statement of the first respondent. Assuming that the respondent's houses in village Nihalgarh are livable, yet a person who has spent most of his life-time in England/abroad, cannot be forced, at the instance of a tenant, to live in a village instead of his own house in urban area. It is a matter of common knowledge that urban areas have better amenities and facilities and there is nothing unreasonable if the respondent-NRI-landlord wants to spend his retired life in his own house in the urban area. There is, thus, no reason to doubt the bonafide need proved by the respondent for the house in dispute.
For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned eviction order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed but no order as to costs.
25-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE