Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritam Singh vs Dilbagh Rai on 31 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007)4PLR712
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J.
1. This revision petition is in respect of the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which Pritam Singh, petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was refused leave to defend under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to be ejected.
2. Dilbagh Rai and Charanjit Rai, both the respondents (the petitioners in the ejectment application under Section 13-B of the Act hereinafter referred to as 'respondents') preferred a petition for ejectment of the petitioner from Shop No. 1 forming part of property Unit No. B-XXXIV-2224/1, Bassi Market, Joshi Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, which was opposed by the petitioner (tenant) on the ground that as per rent note, Dilbagh Rai is the owner of the property, but no title-deed showing the ownership of the property has been placed on the file; no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the petitioner and Charanjit Rai respondent and the attorney cannot file the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. No document i.e. passport or other relevant record has been placed on the file to show whether Dilbagh Rai is a NRI or not. The petitioner further alleged that the respondents are owning several properties and have instituted eviction petitions against all of them; out of the eight-shops, they have filed the eviction petitions against six tenants, whereas, the amended provisions of the Act do not enable an NRI to seek ejectment of more than one tenanted premises. More so, one of the respondents have got possession of four shops and after getting possession, Charanjit Rai respondent has further let out two shops to other persons, subject to increase of rent every year; no partition had taken place between both the brothers; if the respondents were in actual need of the shop, then they would not have further let out the shops after getting possession and that the respondents have deliberately concealed the factum of having other business/commercial properties in their possession; the present petition has been preferred just to increase the rent. Finally, it is averred that the respondents do not require the shop for their own use or occupation and they have no intention to settle in India and thus, their case does not fall within the purview of Section 13-B of the Act.
3. Upon notice, the respondents filed reply controverting all the allegations and submitted that the property in question is the exclusive ownership of Charanjit Singh, but both the brothers have been managing the same as landlords. At the time of filing of the petition, Dilbagh Rai had gone to England on a short visit and as such the petition was filed through his attorney; both the bothers have returned to India and are permanently settled here who were earlier NRIs. It is admitted that there are six tenants in six different shops which form part of the same property in fact, shop No. 3 was taken on rent by Kamaldeep Singh in the year 1992 and he along with his brother Gagandeep Singh had been carrying on business of embroidery of clothes and photography in the shop. In March, 1999, both the brothers approached respondent Dilbagh Rai and requested to transfer the tenancy in the name of Gagandeep Singh and at this Dilbagh Rai appraised them that he requires the shop for his own bonafide requirement to which both the brothers pleaded that they shall vacate shop No. 3 as and when demanded by him, who agreed to it. Consequently, rent note was executed on 17.3.1999 between Dilbagh Rai-Respondent and the tenant Gagandeep Singh and since then Gagandeep Singh is carrying on the business. Similarly, shop No. 4 was on rent with Kundan Lal, father of Jatin-der Kumar and both father and son were carrying on business of electric store. In June, 1999, Kundan Lal approached Dilbagh Rai-respondent to get the tenancy transferred in favour of his son Jatinder Kumari. At this, respondent No. 1 apprised them that he requires the shop for his bona fide necessity, to which both father and son pleaded that they shall vacate the shop in question as and when demanded by the respondent. Respondent No. 1 agreed to it and consequently, the rent note dated 8.1.1999 was executed between respondent No. 1 and Jatinder Kumar and since then the tenant Jatinder Kumar is in occupation of the shop as a tenant and is carrying on the same business of electric store. He never vacated the said shop. The tenants in shop Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8 have also promised to vacate the shops in their possession as and when asked to do so. Tenant Ved Parkash Sodhi occupant of Shop No. 7 and had vacated the shop in his possession in November, 1999, whereas, tenants in shop Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Gagandeep Singh and Jatinder Kumar refused to abide by the undertaking and did not vacate the shop in April,2000 when respondent No. 1 demanded the same and consequently petitions under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of personal necessity were filed against both of them, which are pending adjudication. It has been further repeated that since two shops were let out for the benefit of Charanjit Rai and to avoid any complication, both could be termed as owners/landlords. The land in village Shekhopur-Bakhalour is the ancestral property of the respondents and it has no relevancy to the present petition.
4. The Rent Controller after hearing the parties refused to grant leave to defend to the petitioner and ordered his ejectment from the premises in dispute. Hence, this petition.
5. It is not in dispute that both Dilbagh Rai and Charanjit Rai are brothers and both are NRIs. It is also not in dispute that Dilbagh Rai rented out the demised premises to the petitioner vide rent note (Annexure P-1) and both Dilbagh Rai and Charanjit Rai moved the application for ejectment from the demised premises for their personal necessity and for necessity of their son. At the same time, the petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with respondent No. 2, but this fact does not disentitle the respondents to file the petition for their personal necessity and necessity of their son. The question as to whether a landlord falls within the purview of 'NRI' Landlord was considered in case Mohinder Singh v. Git Singh S.L.P. (Civil) 17622 of 2003, wherein by relying upon the decision of our own High Court in Prem Kumar Patel v. Inder Singh Grewal 2002 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 203 (P & H), it was held as under:
(i) that the landlord is a Non-resident Indian;
(ii) that the landlord has returned to India; and
(iii) that the landlord should be the owner of the property for the last five years.
Once these three ingredients are proved, a mere prayer of the landlord that the tenanted premises is required for his or her own use or for the use of anyone ordinarily living with the dependent on him or her, entitles him/her to get the immediate possession of the property.
6. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this case that a Dilbagh Rai claiming himself to be landlord is not the owner of the property as the sale-deed placed on record is in the name of Charanjit Rai and, therefore, Dilbagh Rai not being the owner of the property for the petition, could not claim ejecciffijnt, is not tenable. In this case, Dilbagh Rai and Charanjit Rai, owners of the property are brothers. It is not only Dilbagh Rai, who has filed the petition, but Charanjit Rai has also filed the petition, though, rent note had been executed by Dilbagh Rai being the brother of Charanjit Rai, but that is not sufficient to hold that Charanjit Rai could not maintain the petition as there was no condition under Section 18-A of the Act that the property must have been let out by the owner. Had this been the intention of the legislature, then the rented property received by the NRI landlord through succession, inheritance, will, gift, family settlement or partition would have remained away from the purview of ejectment.
7. As regards the plea that the bonafide requirement, is not proved because the petitioners are getting vacated six shops out of eight shops owned by them, therefore, it cannot be established that they are in actual personal need of the shop and the landlord is not entitled to seek ejectment of one tenant alone. In this regard, it may be observed that if all the tenants are in possession of different parts of one building, which is required to be vacated by the landlord, then there is no bar in claiming ejectment of all the tenants occupying the shops in one and the same building. In case, one residential building, is let out to different tenants, then the landlord can get possession of any part of the said integrated building in which he wishes to reside. If different portions of one building are let out to different tenants, then all the tenants can be evicted. !f the interpretation suggested by the petitioner is to be accepted that the right of eviction is confined in respect of a portion of such building in possession of one tenant, it negates the very objective of providing summary eviction to Non-Resident Indians in terms of Section 13-B of the Act. Reference in this regard, if any, can be made to Mukesh Kumar v. Santosh Kumari (2007-1) 145 P.L.R. 801. Similarly, another case titled as Bhandari General Store v. Makhan Singh Grewal , while recognizing the right of the NRI landlord to have possession of more than one tenanted premises, our own High Court observed as under:
8. In my opinion, the aforesaid judgment, of the Supreme Court squarely covers the case of the respondent-landlord. In this case also, one building was let out in different parts and in that situation, he is entitled to recover the immediate possession of all the parts by filing different petitions. The question whether the different parts let out to different tenants are part of one building or separate buildings is a question of fact which is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. Before getting ejectment of different tenants from different parts let out to different parties, it has to be established that all the parts let out to different tenants are part of one building. In the instant case, the Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence available on record has recorded a finding of fact that all the 13 shops are part and parcel of the building. In this regard, the Rent Controller has relied upon various photographs, site plan and the report of the Architect, which clearly, established that all the shops constitute one building and the suit building as a single unit was constructed at one time. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact. Thus, in my opinion, the ejectment orders passed against the petitioners regarding two different shops which form part of one building, cannot be said to be illegal on the ground that under Section 13-B of tile Act, the landlord has already got vacated one shop, which was also part of the said building.
In Makhan Singh Grewal's case (supra) the Hon'ble Court further observed that if the different tenements are part and parcel of the same building, then the landlord is entitled to get the possession of the entire building by filing different petitions against different tenants.
8. As regard the other objection that since the building has not been let out by Cha-ranjit Rai, therefore, he cannot seek the possession of the same, can also not be maintained. The Apex Court in case of Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini , after referring provisions of Sub-sections 13-B(1)(2) and (3) along with Section 19 of the act and procedure contained in Subjections 18-A (4)(5)(6) and (8) in context to the objective of the legislation, it was laid down that the scope of enquiry of considering the application under Section 13-B of the Act, the Rent Controller is to be satisfied that (I) the landlord is NRI, (ii) he has returned to India; (iii) his requirement of the accommodation is genuine; and (iv) he is the owner of the property for the last five years before the institution of the proceedings far ejectment, before the Controller. In the case in hand, all the ingredients as set out in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra) stand completed. At the same time, it is also well-settled by now mat letting out by the co-owners or even the letting out by the predecessor of the landlord will be treated by letting out by the owner/present landlord of the property. Had it been the requirement that the owner should have let out the property, then the Supreme Court would have also added it in its guidelines, but that was not so done in their wisdom, because even if one becomes owner of the rented premises by way of purchase, gift, will, partition or inheritance, then it would have been difficult to get it vacated. Thus, the plea that the respondent Charanjit Rai being the owner had not let out the property cannot be taken as a ground for allowing leave to defend the petition.
9. No other point has been raised for seeking leave to defended.
10. The Rent Controller after dealing with all the grounds has passed an elaborate order, with which I do not stand to differ. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.