Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bodh Raj vs Inderjit Singh Grewal on 15 July, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
CR No.257 of 2003 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No. 257 of 2003
Date of Decision: 15 - 7 - 2010
Bodh Raj ....Petitioner
v.
Faquir Chand Chauhan ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.R.C.Dogra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.N.C.Doabia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.J.S.Chahal, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
The respondent-landlord, a Non Resident Indian, filed the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act') on the ground of personal necessity, against the petitioner-tenant, invoking the special provisions of summary trial. He has also filed such petitions against all the tenants of a single building. The case of the petitioner is that the landlord possesses so many other residential and commercial properties falling within the revenue limits of Phagwara and other places and being well settled in United Kingdom, does not require the demised premises for CR No.257 of 2003 [2] personal necessity, but for selling out the same. The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition vide order dated 19.12.2002 and directed the present petitioner to vacate the property in dispute within two months.
Aggrieved against the order of ejectment, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition on the ground that the landlord did not plead the ingredients, as envisaged under Section 13-B of the Act and, thus, he cannot invoke the special provisions of summary trial. Therefore, permission for leave to defend the petition be granted and the same be decided in ordinary course of law.
On 20.1.2003, while issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed:-
"Contends, inter-alia, that return of a landlord to India is one of the essential ingredients for seeking eviction on the ground of a landlord being Non Resident Indian inasmuch as a landlord should be permanently residing in India and not a mere casual visit.
This matter has been dealt with by learned Single Judge of this Court in Prem Kumar Patel vs. Inderjit Singh Grewal, 2002(2) RCR 203. Learned counsel vehemently contends that rule of law laid down by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Prem Kumar Patel (supra) needs reconsideration.
Notice of motion for 24.3.2003.
Stay dispossession meanwhile."
Ultimately, after availing of various adjournments on the ground of arriving at an amicable settlement between the parties, it was admitted on 10.2.2006.
CR No.257 of 2003 [3]
On an application for early hearing of the case on an actual date, it came on the Regular Board in November, 2008.
On 27.1.2009, it was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was pending adjudication qua the question "as to whether a landlord is entitled to invoke Section 13-B in cases where he possessed more than one building in the hands of several tenements. The issue could be taken up after the Hon'ble Supreme Court renders a decision. It is represented that the case is posted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.02.2009". It was adjourned to 9.3.2009.
Ultimately, on 26.2.2010, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the matter has since been disposed of alongwith a bunch of similar Civil Appeals and Special Lave Petition by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 12.11.2009. A copy of one such order passed in Civil Appeal No.785 of 2008, titled `Ved Prakash Sharma (D) by L.Rs. v. Ranbir Singh Sahota and Anr.' is available on the record of this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not interfere with the findings given by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
According to the counsel, following three submissions arise for consideration of this Court in the present case:-
(a) Each tenancy constitutes a separate building as per definition of `building' under the Act and composite building cannot be taken as one unit.
(b) To invoke summary provision, landlord must first migrate to India, settle and then only he can plead personal necessity.
(3) Personal necessity is a mere excuse, but filing of petition CR No.257 of 2003 [4] is motivated out of greed.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced.
In the present case landlord, a Non Resident Indian owned a large building rented out to 21 tenants. He has sought eviction of all the tenants. The premises in occupation of each tenant may be one unit for the purposes of tenancy but will not constitute separate buildings. Entire building being one is to be taken as the whole and landlord is entitled to evict all the tenants. It is now also well settled that landlord can shift after possession is delivered, his migration is not a condition precedent. Imagine, if a landlord migrates to his native land, then he has to wait for eviction to mature, only to himself live in a rented house, if such is allowed to happen, it will be anathema to the salutary provisions for which the Act was amended. Lastly, it cannot be ignored that the migration of non resident can be motivated, to live in his own surroundings, close to his roots in the dawn of his life and not always out of profit or greed.
Therefore, I find no reason to record discordant note than the one recorded by the Rent Controller. Hence, the findings recorded by him are affirmed and present revision petition is dismissed.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) July 15, 2010. JUDGE RC