Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Rishi vs Bakhshish Kaur on 5 August, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 5th August, 2013
Rakesh Rishi
Petitioner
Versus
Bakhshish Kaur
Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 27.10.2012 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby his prayer for leave to defend under Section 18-A (4) & (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rent Act') in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Rent Act has been declined.
The respondent-landlady filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act and sought ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises i.e. Front Mezzanine portion of SCO No.112-13, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. In the eviction petition, it was averred that she had gone to England along with her husband namely Sh.Harbans Singh Boora after marriage, who had settled there and was carrying on a business. It has been further averred that the property in question, Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 2 after the demise of her husband, has been transferred in her name on the basis of a Will and now she has returned to India and the premises in dispute is required by her for her own use for business purposes as well as for establishment of her family. She is holding a British passport and is being looked after by her only son. In the eviction petition, the respondent-landlady has further asserted that there is no other tenant in the entire building and the first, second and third floors of the said building are lying vacant. The premises on Front Mezzanine portion of SCO No.112-13 connected with the stairs adjoining the portion of M/s Jeweller Talwar Sons are on rent with the petitioner for the last more than ten years and the petitioner is carrying on a business of tailoring under the name and style of M/s Rishi Tailors. A lease-deed was executed on 02.01.2008 between the parties and the petitioner was paying rent @ ` 6000 per month with effect from 01.04.2010 as per the terms and conditions contained in the lease-deed which was for a period of five years with effect from 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2012. The respondent-landlady requires the building including the demised premises for her own use and occupation. She further stated that first, second and third floors of the building in question were on rent with the office of Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh and they were paying rent @ ` 3,07,746 per month; however, they have vacated the said portion of the building and the same is lying vacant. The respondent-landlady and her son, who had returned to India in November 2010, had requested the petitioner as Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 3 well as the other tenants in the building to vacate the premises as she was in personal need of the entire building. It is her further case that she has not filed any similar petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act with respect to any other property except the present building of which she was owner for more than five years. Since the petitioner had refused the request of the respondent-landlady, necessity arose to file the instant eviction petition.
Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant appeared and filed an application for leave to defend, admitting that he was in occupation of Front Mezzanine portion of SCO No.112-13, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh (adjoining portion of M/s Jeweller Talwar sons) since 1974. The petitioner sought leave to defend the eviction petition on various grounds submitting that the respondent-landlady was residing in United Kingdom for the last more than 50 years and was a British citizen. The respondent-landlady and her son, who is also a British citizen, are having settled business in UK and are earning huge income there as well as rental income from the buildings in India and the agricultural land. The respondent-landlady is a foreign national and the same is not included in the definition of 'Non Resident Indian' because an NRI is a person who is an Indian citizen ordinarily and is residing outside India holding an Indian passport. Since the respondent-landlady is neither an Indian citizen nor she holds an Indian passport, she does not fulfill the basic ingredients of being NRI, and therefore, she would not be entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 13-B of the Rent Act. The petitioner Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 4 further mentioned in the application for leave to defend that such a question on similar facts is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.189 of 2011 and thus, the instant eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the Rent Act is not maintainable. It is further case of the petitioner that provisions of Section 13-B and Section 2 (dd) of the Rent Act are contrary to the provisions of the Citizenship Act as well as Constitution of India and various Notifications issued by the Government of India; and are liable to be struck-down. The petitioner further raised a ground that the eviction petition was not maintainable as the Notification dated 09.10.2009, vide which Section 13-B of the Rent Act has been extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, is illegal and without jurisdiction; and thus, the extension of the said law as made applicable to the UT Chandigarh itself is bad and therefore, the petition filed on behalf of the respondent-landlady under Section 13-B of the Rent Act is not maintainable. A further ground has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-landlady does not fulfill the requirement of Section 2(dd) of the Rent Act. Moreover, the respondent-landlady under the threat of the said provisions has forced the tenants to enhance the rent of the building in question manifold. Even the respondent-landlady has renewed the tenancy, though no written agreement was executed. It has been further submitted that the tenancy in question is contractual, which is in existence and as such the eviction petition is not maintainable during the subsistence of Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 5 contract/agreement. The petitioner has further submitted in the application for leave to defend that the upper floors of the building in question have already been vacated by the tenants on 30.09.2009 and are still lying vacant; and in case the respondent-landlady desires to use the building in question for her own use and occupation, she would have occupied the upper floors and commenced the business, whereas she has advertised to lease out the upper floors on enhanced rent and thus, requirement of the respondent-landlady was neither bonafide nor genuine and under the garb of eviction petition she is trying to pressurize the petitioner and the other tenants to increase the rent manifold, which is otherwise not permissible under law.
Respondent-landlady filed reply to the aforesaid application for leave to defend, controverting the grounds as raised. In the reply, she submitted that she was an NRI in terms of Section 2(dd) of the Rent Act and the pendency of SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not relevant and the judgment rendered in 'Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini' (2005) 12 SCC 778, which has interpreted the definition of NRI contained in the provisions of Section 2(dd) of the Rent Act, has not been stayed. It was also stated in the reply that Sections 13-B and 2(dd) of the Rent Act were rightly extended to the UT Chandigarh vide Notification dated 09.10.2009 and the same was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in 'Asha Chawla & others v. Union of India & others' 2011(4) PLR 376. All other averments made in the application Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 6 were denied and a prayer was made for dismissing the application for leave to defend and evict the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 27.10.2012 has rejected the application for grant of leave to defend filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant and has further directed the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent- landlady within a period of two months from the date of the order, failing which the respondent-landlady was held entitled to take possession of the premises in dispute through the Court process.
At this stage, it is useful to notice the relevant part of the order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, which reads thus:
"15. In the present case also the respondent/tenant has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to show that the requirement of the petitioners is not genuine and bonafide. Merely because the petitioner is 80 years old, it cannot be said that she cannot run her business. In this connection reliance can be placed upon Atma Singh Brar v. Mukhtiar Singh 2003(1) RCR (Rent) 42 Supreme Court, in which it has been held - Landlord had a mind to shift to Canada - Offered to sell his house to tenant - Deal did not mature - Landlord changed his mind and decided to live in his own house in old age - Need bonafide. Though the above petition pertained to Section 13(a)(i) of the Rent Act but it is relevant in the present case also that the contention of the counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner wanted to increase the rent exorbitantly. Even if it is true that the petitioner has earlier got enhanced the Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 7 rent manifold before the filing of the present petition, it does not imply that there can be no bonafide necessity of the petitioner. Moreover, there is no evidence of the petitioner seeking to enhance the rent during the pendency of the present petition. Further reliance can be placed upon Punjab National Bank Vs. Nirmal Singh 2010(1) Rent LR 530 (P&H), in which it has been held - Section 13-B and 18-A - Bonafide requirement - NRI landlord came to reside in India - Seeking eviction of tenant from business premises to start business in electronic goods - Contention of tenant that landlord was an elderly person and all his family members and all relatives were residing in Canada and an elderly person could not engage himself in business solitarily - Contention not tenable - Held - An adult Indian who wants to return to India to do his business, need not bring with him his sons and relatives to prove that he is interested in running the business. Alone or with family members, it is his own choice and the tenant cannot make an inference on the bonafides by his own perception about how an elderly person should engage himself in business solitarily leaving all his relatives outside India.
16. Further the petitioner has not filed any other petition under Section 13-B of the Act and as per law an NRI is entitled to avail the benefit of this provision once in his lifetime. No material has been placed on record by the respondent to show that the petitioner has earlier availed the remedy under Section 13-B of the Rent Act.
17. As far as another contention of the respondent that petitioner has not obtained necessary permission from the Government of India and Reserve Bank of India for starting business in India is concerned, the same also Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 8 stands repelled from the law laid down in Rajinder Kaur v. Gurdev Singh Dhillon 2011(1) Rent Law Reporter 416 (P&H), in which it has been held that - Tenant contended that NRI landlord has not disclosed the business which is sought to be carried out by him in the demised premises - Contention rejected - Held, the landlord is only supposed to urge that the demised premises is required for his own use and occupation or for the person dependent upon him.
18. Another contention of the respondent that the notification vide which the Amendment Act of 2001 was extended to UT of Chandigarh is ultra vires of the Constitution and is unconstitutional is concerned, the same also stands repelled because the said notification has not been declared ultra vires and unconstitutional by any Court till date. And moreover, the mere pendency of the SLPs in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some particular cases is no ground to reject or stay the present petition.
19. Another contention of the respondent that the tenancy is a contractual tenancy and the present petition is premature as the same has been filed before the expiry of lease period, is also not tenable because the Rent Act is a special legislation and the petition on the basis of personal necessity can be filed even before the expiry of the lease period. In this connection reliance can be placed upon Lakshmi Venkateshwra Enterprises v. S.V. Begum 1994(2) Rent Control Reporter 121 Supreme Court, in which it has been held - landlord granting lease of vacant land for 32 years under a registered lease deed - landlord whether can file suit for ejectment under Rent Act during subsistence of contractual tenancy - yes. It is not correct to hold that Rent Control Act is a beneficial enactment only to the tenant. In this connection reliance can also be Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 9 placed upon Dhanpal Chettier v. Yasodai Ammal 1979 (2) RCJ 358 Supreme Court, in which it has been held -
Eviction of tenant under Rent Act - Notice to quite under T.P. Act is not required to be given to tenant - Notice be given where lease is governed by T.P. Act. Once the liability to be evicted is incurred by the tenant, he cannot turn around and say that contractual lease has not been determined. Moreover, it is a settled law that Section 13-B and Section 18-A of the Rent Act are a code unto itself having overriding effect, therefore, being the Special Legislation and Section 13-B being a special provision having overriding effect on all other statutes, the landlord is entitled to evict the tenant even during the subsistence of lease. Because had the intention of the legislature been so, it could have specifically provided that in case of a contractual or perpetual lease, the tenant cannot be evicted during the subsistence of the lease. The provision has to be read as it is. Moreover, a landlord cannot be forced to wait till the expiry of the lease, if he is having bonafide necessity at present.
20. Hence as a sequel of the above discussion, it is evident that in the present case no reasonable ground has been raised by the tenant to justify the grant of leave to defend."
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently argued that admittedly the respondent-landlady is a British passport holder and the question whether a foreign passport holder and a foreign citizen can be called NRI is pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP No.189 of 2011. Learned counsel has further argued that even the question of Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 10 extension of the aforesaid provisions of Sections 13-B and 2(dd) of the Rent Act, as extended to UT Chandigarh, is also pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court; and once the petitioner-tenant has raised such an issued by making a specific averment in the application for grant of leave to defend, the Rent Controller ought to have granted the prayer for leave to defend as the petitioner has raised a triable issue before the Rent Controller and it is a settled law that if a triable issue is raised, leave to defend has to be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has failed to appreciate the fact that the need of the respondent-landlady is not bonafide, as all the upper floors, i.e. first, second and third floor, of the building in question are admittedly lying vacant and are in possession of the respondent-landlady and she could have definitely started some business in these upper floors in case she wanted to do so; whereas the respondent-landlady has hired a Property Dealer to let out the aforesaid upper floors of which she was in vacant possession. Even from the facts disclosed in the application for leave to defend, it has been clearly established that under the garb of eviction petition, the respondent-landlady wants to enhance the rent manifold, and thus, in the present case the need of the respondent-landlady cannot be held to be genuine and it is a clear case of additional accommodation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised an issue submitting that the lease agreement is still subsisting, and therefore, the petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act was not maintainable.
Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 11
On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that since several triable issues were raised before the Rent Controller, it was a fit case in which leave to defend ought to have been granted to the petitioner- tenant. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and the prayer made in the application for leave to defend is to be allowed in favour of the petitioner-tenant.
On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent-landlady has vehemently opposed the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, arguing that the provisions of Sections 13-B and 2(dd) of the Rent Act have already been interpreted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra) wherein it has been held that the citizenship is totally irrelevant as a person of Indian origin living abroad, who is having immovable property in India, is an NRI. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that there is no dispute of the fact that respondent- landlady is a person of Indian origin, who had settled abroad and wants to come back to India to settle here at the fag end of her life. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that respondent-landlady is the owner of the property in question for the last more than five years and thus, she fulfills all the ingredients to be eligible to get benefits under Section 13-B of the Rent Act. It has been further argued that the requirement/personal necessity of the Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 12 respondent-landlady cannot be challenged by dictating terms as to how and in what manner she should meet her requirements; as it is well settled that in the matter of requirement of the landlord with regard to the tenanted premises for his personal use and occupation, the tenant is not to dictate the landlord as to how the landlord should act or do any business. Moreover, under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Rent Act, a landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant of one building once in his lifetime. Undisputedly, the respondent-landlady has not availed such a remedy earlier, and thus, the argument raised is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent has also opposed the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant with regard to subsisting of the contract/tenancy agreement which has already come to an end on 31.10.2012, and has submitted that the subsistence of a lease agreement cannot affect the rights of the landlord to evict the tenant on the grounds available to the landlord. In the end, learned counsel for the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
At this stage it may be useful to refer to the relevant part of the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra), which read thus:
"24. Definition of 'Non-resident Indian' (NRI) under the Act contemplates that any person who is of an Indian Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 13 origin, and who has settled either permanently or temporarily outside India for taking up employment; or for carrying on a business or vocation outside India; or for any other purpose in such circumstances as would indicate to stay outside India for an uncertain period, would be a Non- resident Indian. Thus to be a NRI, it is sufficient that a person of an Indian origin establishes that he has permanently or temporarily settled outside India for his business or on account of his employment, or for any other purpose which would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period. Therefore, any person who has gone out of India and temporarily settled there for the purposes of undertaking certain course or degree of University would not be a NRI because his stay could not be said to be for an uncertain period. A person to be an NRI, first should be of an Indian origin. The phrase 'Indian Origin' has not been defined in the Act of 1949. The dictionary and in ordinary parlance phrase 'origin' refers to persons parentage or ancestry. The person whose parent, grand-parents, or great-grand parents were born in India and permanently resided in India would be an NRI for the purposes of the Act of 1949. It is not necessary that the person should be a citizen of India and shifted to the foreign country or that because he holds foreign passport he would not be NRI. In the appeals before us, there is no challenge that the landlords are not the NRIs within the meaning of the Act because they do not have the Indian origin. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants is to bring the case within the four corners of Section 2 (dd) and 13-B of the Act of 1949, it is necessary that NRI has to return to India permanently. We are unable to agree with the interpretation of Section 2(dd) and 13-B Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 14 sought to be placed by the learned counsel. Return to India could not be read as return to India permanently with an intention to settle in India permanently. If we read the phrase 'return to India' along with the definition of the 'NRI' under Section 2(dd) of the Act, it is clear that the special category of landlords NRI could also be a person who has settled permanently outside India. Thus permanent resident outside India being NRI can claim ejectment."
At this stage, the judgment in the case of Sohan Lal v. Swaran Kaur 2003(2) Rent Control Reporter 407, be referred to which reads thus:
"The expression 'NRI' used in Section 2(dd) of the Act has been clearly defined and there is no ambiguity necessitating any external aid for interpreting the same. The ordinary meaning of the expression 'NRI' given in Section 2(dd) of the Act is that a person of Indian origin living abroad whether settled permanently or temporarily. The purpose of his living abroad has been amplified either for taking up employment outside India or for carrying on business or vocation outside India or for any other purpose as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for uncertain period. Therefore, the definition of expression 'NRI' cannot be confined to only those who are holding Indian Passport and continue to be the Indian citizens. The definition in fact embraces all those categories of Indians living abroad whether citizens or non-citizens, whether born in India or abroad, whether carrying Indian or foreign passport. It appears that as long as he is owner of a property in the State of Punjab legislature has intentionally used a wider expression to include large number of NRIs."Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 15
Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner- tenant that the respondent-landlady is not an NRI under Section 2(dd) of the Rent Act, has been negated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in the aforesaid judgments by observing that definition of NRI under the Act contemplates that any person of Indian origin who is settled either permanently or temporarily outside India for taking up employment or for carrying on a business or vocation outside India, or for any other purpose in such circumstances as would indicate to stay outside India for an uncertain period, would be a Non Resident Indian. Thus, to be a NRI, it is sufficient that a person of an Indian origin establishes that he has permanently or temporarily settled outside India for his business or on account of his employment, or for any other purpose which would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period; and it is not necessary that the person should be a citizen of India or that because he holds foreign passport he would not be NRI. There is no dispute of the fact that the respondent-landlady is a person of Indian origin. She had gone abroad more than 30 years ago and has now come back to settle here in India at the fag end of her life and wants the demised premises for her own use and occupation. The pendency of SLP No.189 of 2011 on a similar issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not make any effect for deciding the instant case, as such a question was raised before this Court in the case of 'Ranjit Puri v. Dr. Mohinder Paul Singh' (2012-13) Vol.CLXVII PLR 309 which was negated by this court holding that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 16 different SLPs, has stayed eviction which are peculiar to the said cases and it is not acceptable that Rent Controllers will be barred from proceeding with the trial of cases under Section 13-B of the Act on account of the fact that the tenants are setting up fresh challenge to the definition of NRI landlord.
Similarly the question of extension of the provisions of Section 13-B and 2(dd) of the Rent Act to the UT Chandigarh will also not make any difference, as admittedly the provisions of the Rent Act are on the statute book and till date have not been struck- down/deleted. Thus, the Rent Controller was well within his rights to reject the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner in view of the authoritative pronouncements on the issue in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case and Asha Chawla's case (supra).
So far as the contention of the petitioner that the need of respondent-landlady is not bonafide and genuine is concerned, the same is also liable to be rejected in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Under Section 13-B of the Rent Act, in order to succeed, the respondent-landlady was bound to prove the following ingredients:
(1) That the respondent-landlady is NRI and she has returned to India and the premises in dispute is required for her personal use and requirement.
(2) That the respondent-landlady is owner of the property in dispute for more than five years.Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 17
(3) That the respondent-landlady has not vacated any other premises by filing the petition under Section 13-
B of the Rent Act earlier.
At this stage, it is also relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 18-A (4) of the Act, which reads thus:
"18-A(4) The tenant on whom the service of summons has been declared to have been validly made under sub-section (3), shall have no right to contest the prayer for eviction from the [residential building or scheduled building and/or non residential building], as the case may be, unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided, and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grandchild or the widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord [or the owner, who is non resident Indian] in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction of the tenant."
In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the facts that the respondent-landlady is owner of the property in dispute for more than five years and has not filed any other petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act earlier, and that she is an NRI and has returned to India. Once that is so, a presumption has to be drawn in favour of the landlady under Section 18-A (4) and (5) of the Rent Act to the effect Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 18 that need of the respondent-landlady is genuine. Such a presumption, of course can be rebutted by making out a very strong case; however, in the instant case, the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner- tenant, for holding that the requirement of the respondent-landlady is not bonafide, are unsustainable in law. A heavy burden lies upon the tenant to prove the facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence. A mere assertion on behalf of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the presumption in favour of the landlord. In the present case, the petitioner-tenant has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to show that the requirement of the respondent- landlady was not bonafide. Simply because the upper floors of the building in question are lying vacant or that earlier she had got enhanced the rent before filing of the eviction petition, does not imply that there is no bonafide necessity of the respondent-landlady. It may further be noticed that the landlord is only supposed to urge that the demised premises is required for his own use and occupation or for the persons dependent upon him, and is not required to disclose the business which is sought to be carried out by him or in what manner or at which place.
This brings us to the last contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant to the effect that tenancy is contractual and the present petition for eviction is premature having been filed before expiry of the lease period.
Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7630 of 2012 (O&M) 19
The aforesaid contention is also to be rejected because the Rent Act is a special legislation and the petition for eviction of a tenant can be filed even before expiry of the lease period if a ground of ejectment is existing. Once the liability to be evicted is incurred by the tenant, he cannot turn around to say that contractual lease has not been terminated. Moreover, the provisions of the Rent Act are a Code in itself having overriding effect and being a special legislation will have an overriding effect on all other statutes. This view finds support from the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of 'Lakshmi Venkateshwra Enterprises v. S.V. Begum' 1994(2) Rent Control Reporter 121 SC and 'Dhanpal Chettier v. Yasodai Ammal' 1979 (2) RCJ 358 SC.
No other point has been raised.
In view of the aforesaid, no exception can be taken to the impugned order as the same has been passed in accordance with law and is a well reasoned order.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE August 5, 2013 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.13 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh