Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maan Chand @ Man Chand vs Maya Devi on 10 October, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
CR-6930-2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.6930 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: October 10, 2014.
Maan Chand @ Man Chand
......PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
Maya Devi Panesar
....RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Parshotam Lal Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner (s).
*******
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
Aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by Rent Controller, Phillaur, ordering the ejectment of petitioner from the demised premises, the petitioner has filed this revision petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the application of petitioner seeking leave to defend.
Respondent Maya Devi Panesar filed a petition under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), seeking the ejectment of petitioner from the shop on rent with him on the ground that she had purchased the said shop on 2.9.1993. She is non-resident Indian residing in London but having Indian passport. She being old lady could not bear the cold weather of United Kingdom SACHIN MEHTA 2014.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR-6930-2014 -2- and has decided to return to India and live at Phillaur, where she intend to start business in the shop in question along with her daughter to earn her livelihood.
On notice, petitioner sought leave to defend by moving application under sub-section 5 to Section 18A of the Act on the ground as follows:-
(i) Maya Devi is not a non-resident Indian.
(ii) She is not the owner or landlady of the demised shop.
(iii) Respondent and her daughter do not require the demised
shop to start any business. This petition has been filed to misuse the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. The respondent is 85 years of age and is financially sound and at this stage of life, the question of starting any business by the respondent does not arise. The daughter of respondent is a teacher and getting salary. She has not even returned to India so far.
(iv) Petition has not been filed by a competent person. Nirmal Kaur, attorney of the respondent has no authority to file this petition.
Learned Rent Controller on appraisal of pleadings and documents on file, reached the conclusion as follows:-
(i) The respondent is proved to be a non-resident Indian.
(ii) The registered sale deed in favour of respondent and the assessment record prove the title of the respondent over the demised premises. These documents have not been rebutted by the petitioner. SACHIN MEHTA 2014.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR-6930-2014 -3-
(iii) The shop falls within the municipal area and provisions of the Act are applicable to the present case.
(iv) The respondent has bona fide necessity for the shop in question and the petitioner has failed to produce any document on file to rebut her bona fide necessity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this petition was filed by the general power of attorney of the landlady namely Nirmal Kaur (her daughter). The power of attorney executed in favour of Nirmal Kaur is dated 28.08.2012. The petition was filed on 02.01.2013 and in this power of attorney, no specific authority was given to Nirmal Kaur to file this petition.
The above argument of learned counsel for the petitioner has no basis. The power of attorney Annexure P-2 is a general power of attorney authorising Nirmal Kaur to deal with the entire property of the petitioner. The powers given to the attorney include the authority to file petition, written statement, replication, application, appeal in any court of law and to appoint/constitute any pleader, advocate or attorney. It was nowhere required or expected to be specifically mentioned in this general power of attorney regarding the authority of attorney-holder to file petition under Section 13-B of the Act. This power is implicit on the perusal of the general power of attorney (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the pleadings in the petition were signed by the attorney, as such, the bona SACHIN MEHTA 2014.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR-6930-2014 -4- fide requirement as pleaded, cannot be taken to be that of respondent- landlady and affidavit of landlady was required. The basic purpose of executing power of attorney was to give the authority to sell, mortgage the property of the respondent and not for filing a petition under Section 13-B of the Act.
The above argument of learned counsel for the petitioner are also not made out on perusal of the general power of attorney (Annexure P-2). Being a general power of attorney holder, Smt. Nirmal Kaur was competent to file the petition, sign the pleadings and no separate affidavit of landlady was required with regard to her bona fide requirement.
This contention that at the age of 85 years, the petitioner cannot be supposed to start any business is only hypothetical. Age is no bar to start a business, particularly when petitioner wants to start business with the assistance of her daughter.
On perusal of the record and order of the learned Rent Controller, I find no illegality or infirmity therein calling for any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
This petition has no merits. Dismissed.
( SURINDER GUPTA ) October 10, 2014. JUDGE Sachin M. SACHIN MEHTA 2014.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh