Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bal Kishan vs Harjit Kaur And Ors. on 3 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)144PLR257
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
ORDER Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 18.2.2005, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for granting of leave to contest was declined and an order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner in terms of Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. It is the case of the respondents that they are non-resident Indians (NRIs) as defined under Section 2(bb) of the Act. As respondent-Harjit Kaur had gone to Canada about 14 years back whereas respondent-Harjinder Kaur had gone to Canada after her marriage. It has been further pleaded that the respondent herein is in bona fide need of the shop in dispute as also the adjoining shop as detailed in the petition. It was also pointed out the respondents have already filed the ejectment petition against the tenant of adjoining shop but the said case has not been decided so far.
3. The petitioner sought leave to contest on the ground that property was originally owned by one Dhian Singh who has died in the year 1972. Thereafter, the property has devolved upon the wife of Dhian Singh, Smt. Bishan Kaur as well as Harjinder Kaur and Harjit Kaur-respondents herein. Said Bishan Kaur has also died on 6.10.2000. It is the case of the petitioner herein that since he was inducted as tenant by Bishan Kaur, therefore, the respondents herein have no right to seek his eviction particularly under the provisions of Section 13B of the Act.
4. However, the learned Rent Controller found that since Bishan Kaur had died, therefore, the respondents have succeeded to her estate and by operation of law, they have become owners. It was further found by the Rent Controller that since the respondents have inherited the share after the death of their father on 21.10.1972, the said respondents satisfied the requirement of owning the premises in dispute for a period of five years prior to the filing of petition under Section 13B of the Act. In respect of another argument that other suitable accommodation is available with the respondents, it was found that petitioner has failed to show that the respondents are in possession of any other vacant adjustable accommodation within the municipal limits. In view of the said findings, the learned Rent Controller declined application of leave to contest and consequently passed an order.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the ejectment petition was filed on 18.11.2004 whereas Bishan Kaur died on 6.10.2000 and thus, 5 years' period has not expired so as to entitle them to seek ejectment. The said argument of the learned Counsel is misconceived. The respondents succeeded to the shop of Dhian Singh after his death in the year 1972. Earlier, during the life time of Bishan Kaur, said respondents had one-third share each but after the death of their mother, their share has enlarged to one half each but it cannot be said the respondents have become owners only after the death of Bishan Kaur on 6.10.2000. Thus, I do not find any merit in the said argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
6. It has been further argued that another tenant Gurbachan Singh vacated the adjoining shop and the said shop has been locked by the respondent and has not been put to use. It has been further argued that since the accommodation has become available with the respondents, therefore, eviction from the shop in dispute cannot be sought by the respondents. However, the said argument is again not tenable in law. It is pleaded case of the respondents in the ejectment petition itself that they are in bona fide need of the adjoining shop as well. It was also disclosed in the petition that ejectment petition was filed against the another tenant. Once the requirement is of both the shops, the mere fact that another shop has become available would not be ground to deny the eviction of a tenant.
7. No other point has been raised in this petition.
8. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any material irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller which may warrant interference by this Court.
Dismissed.