Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kaur vs Ram Kishan And Others on 25 April, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 7947 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 7947 of 2010
Date of Decision : April 25, 2012
Surinder Kaur .... Petitioner
Vs.
Ram Kishan and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate
for the respondents.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Landlord no.2 Surinder Kaur has filed this revision petition under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short - the Act) assailing order dated 21.08.2010, passed by learned Rent Controller, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, thereby allowing application moved by tenant Basant Ram (since deceased and represented by respondents no.1 to 3 as his legal representatives) for leave to contest the ejectment petition, which has been instituted by the petitioner herein along C. R. No. 7947 of 2010 2 with her husband Sohan Lal (since deceased and represented by proforma respondents no.4 to 7) under Section 13-B of the Act.
Landlord Sohan Lal and his wife Surinder Kaur filed ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act alleging that they are non-resident Indians (NRIs) and they needed the demised property for their own occupation.
Tenant filed application (Annexure P-3) under Section 18-A of the Act for leave to contest the ejectment petition alleging that the landlords, who have filed the ejectment petition, are not owners of the demised property. It was also alleged that earlier they had filed two ejectment petitions under Section 13 of the Act, which stand dismissed, and therefore, petitioners are not in bona fide requirement of the demised property.
Learned Rent Controller, vide impugned order dated 21.08.2010, allowed the application of tenant for leave to contest the ejectment petition. Feeling aggrieved, landlord no.2 has filed this revision petition.
At the outset, it may be noticed that this revision petition lies under Section 18-A (8) of the Act and not under Section 15 (5) of the Act and it is treated accordingly. It may also be mentioned that Basant Ram has since died and is represented by respondents no.1 to 3 as his legal representatives. They are two brothers and one sister of the original tenant Basant Ram.
C. R. No. 7947 of 2010 3
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that mere dismissal of ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act does not debar the landlord from subsequently filing ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act, and therefore, leave to contest the ejectment petition filed under Section 13- B of the Act could not be granted to the tenant. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on two judgments of this Court namely Lakhwinder Kumar vs. Pavitter Kaur (dead) through LRs reported as 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 279 and Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal vs. Harcharan Singh and another reported as 2011 (1) L. A. R. 203.
On the other hand, counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 contended that instant subsequent ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act is barred because earlier ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the landlords was dismissed negativing their plea of bona fide requirement. It was also contended that landlords are not owners of the demised premises. It was also submitted that landlords are not NRIs. It was also argued that respondents no.1 to 3 are not admitted to be tenants by the landlords, and therefore, ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act does not lie.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions.
Section 13-B is a special provision enacted for NRIs. They C. R. No. 7947 of 2010 4 have been given a right to seek ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal necessity. There is presumption of personal necessity in favour of NRI landlord, if ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act are satisfied. Tenant has to make out a prima facie case for grant of leave to contest such petition. In the instant case, the tenant has failed to do so. Learned Rent Controller allowed the application of tenant for leave to contest the ejectment petition on the ground that earlier ejectment petition filed by the landlords under Section 13 of the Act stood dismissed. However, on this ground, ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act cannot be dismissed and leave to contest such petition cannot be granted on this ground. In this view, I am supported by judgments of this Court in the cases of Lakhwinder Kumar (supra) and Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal (supra). The contention that landlords are not owners of demised property is untenable. Admittedly, Basant Ram had taken the demised property from landlords. Moreover, landlords have placed on record sale deed dated 14.10.1986 (Annexure P-2), whereby they purchased the demised property almost 20 years before the filing of the ejectment petition on 25.07.2006, and therefore, it cannot be said that landlords are not owners of the demised property. The contention that landlords are not NRIs cannot be accepted because no such plea was even raised in application for leave to contest the ejectment petition. On the other hand, the landlords have annexed copies of their passports to depict that they are NRIs.
C. R. No. 7947 of 2010 5
Tenancy of respondents no.1 to 3 is being disputed by the landlords on the ground that being brothers and sister of the original tenant, they have no right to inherit the tenancy. However, the ejectment petition was filed against original tenant and if landlords have a right to seek ejectment of original tenant, respondents no.1 to 3, who claim through the original tenant, are also liable to ejectment.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that tenant failed to make out sufficient ground for granting leave to contest the ejectment petition. Learned Rent Controller erroneously allowed the said application on the ground that earlier ejectment petition filed by landlords under Section 13 of the Act stood dismissed. However, this is no bar to file the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act. Impugned order of the Rent Controller is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error because learned Rent Controller exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in it to grant leave to contest the ejectment petition. Contention of counsel for respondents that pursuant to impugned order, written statement was filed and issues have been framed, would not defeat the instant revision petition because proceedings taken pursuant to impugned order, which is being set aside, would automatically become nonest.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.08.2010 of learned Rent Controller is set aside. Application (Annexure P-3) moved by the tenant for leave to contest C. R. No. 7947 of 2010 6 the ejectment petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act is dismissed. Consequently, ejectment petition (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 13-B of the Act is allowed and respondents no.1 to 3 are directed to vacate the demised premises and to hand over its vacant possession to the landlords.
April 25, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE