Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajiv Chugh vs Gurpal Singh & Others on 12 March, 2012
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
C.R. No.7026 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.7026 of 2011
Date of decision: 12.3.2012
Rajiv Chugh ......Appellant
Vs
Gurpal Singh & others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.R.K.Handa & Mr.Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocates, for the petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 17.09.2011 whereby the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has dismissed the application of the petitioner-tenant for leave to contest under Section 18-A and ordered of ejectment under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(for brevity, the 'Act')and directed to hand-over the vacant possession within two months.
2. The landlords being 3 in number, filed Rent Petition under Section 13-B seeking ejectment of the respondent from Booth No.111, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh on the ground of personal requirement of landlord No.2, Major Kirat Singh. It was alleged that the landlord, landlord No.2 is a Non Resident Indian residing at Sanramon, California, USA and wanted to permanently settle in India and required the booth for his personal use and occupation and wanted to start his business along with his wife, Smt.Vandana. It was alleged that the landlords, in open auction held on 10.07.1985, had purchased the said site and a letter of allotment was issued in their favour on 19.09.1985. Earlier, Smt.Kanwaljit Kaur was also owner in equal share and after her death on 16.06.1996, her 25% share was also C.R. No.7026 of 2011 2 inherited by the said landlords in equal shares being husband and sons of Kanwaljit Kaur. It was pleaded that the said owners were landlords to the tune of 1/3rd share each. The said booth has been given on rent vide a registered lease deed dated 31.10.1995 for a period of 5 years from 01.05.1995 and at a monthly rent of Rs.4865/- excluding electricity and water charges. The said rent was to be payable in advance by the 7th of each month. It was agreed that after the expiry of the lease period, both the parties will execute fresh lease deed with the increase of 10% of the existing rent. However, the respondent did not execute any fresh lease deed after the expiry of the lease period. The tenant also failed to pay the property tax @ 3% from 02.11.2004 which was levied by the Municipal Corporation and the tenancy having expired on 30.04.2000, the same had not been extended- renewed. Accordingly, it was contended that the premises were required for personal requirement of the landlord No.2 and his wife and they intend to settle in India and run their business from the said booth. The other landlords do not have any objection if the said booth site was used for personal use and occupation of landlord No. 2. The details of the other landlords being owners of other properties in Chandigarh was also mentioned and the landlord No.2 having 7% share in SCO No.10, Sector 26 and the fact of the building on rent was also mentioned. It was also mentioned that booth No.110, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh was also in the ownership of the said landlords and the said booth was on rent and the same was also required for the use and occupation by the wife of landlord No.3. It was also averred that the family members were not occupying any other similar commercial building in the urban area of Chandigarh for the purpose of business of landlord No.2 and neither had vacated any similar C.R. No.7026 of 2011 3 building without any sufficient cause.
3. The application under Section 18-A of the Act was filed by the petitioner-tenant for grant of leave to defend the above-said ejectment petition and it was pleaded that landlords No.1 & 3 were not Non Resident Indians and were co-sharers and the petition could not be maintained under Section 13-B of the Act and it was bad for mis-joinder of parties. The premises had been let out vide registered lease deed dated 31.10.1995 and Gurpal Singh was stated to be sole and exclusive owner of the booth in question and the landlord No.2 had no relationship of landlord-tenant with the applicant and the tenant was never apprised of the ownership of landlord No.2, and therefore, the competency of the landlord No.2 to maintain the present petition should be decided by production of evidence. The non- payment of property tax was not a ground of eviction under Section 13-B of the Act, and therefore, the petition was not maintainable. It was not averred that the landlord No. 2 had gone to earn his livelihood or to engage in any vocation and had gone for either pleasure trip or as a dependent and therefore, did not fall under the definition of the "Non Resident Indian" and this question would have to be decided after leading evidence and he was not falling within the definition of Section 2 (dd) of the Act. The necessity of the landlords was denied and it was alleged that they own various non- residential premises which they did not occupy to carry on business and various portions of the other commercial properties in Sector 40-C, 26 & 8- C, Chandigarh were let out out and this speaks of clear mala fide on the part of the landlords. Accordingly, it was pleaded that leave to defend should be granted as it was a case where evidence has to be laid and it was only an attempt to get the rent enhanced since the tenant had refused to enhance the C.R. No.7026 of 2011 4 rent executed between landlord No.1 and the tenant.
4. The said application was contested by filing a reply dated 11.10.2010 and it is pleaded that landlord No.2 who was a Non Resident Indian, had settled in the United States of America and had been issued an American Passport and it was very much a proof of his NRI status and even landlord No.1 was having a Green Card for residency in America and also qualified as a Non Resident Indian and landlord No.3 was a Indian National and they had no objection to the landlord No.2 evicting the tenant under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. The fact of being a co-owner, his right to file a petition under Section 13-B of the Act was there and the ownership of the landlord was proved from the letter of allotment of the said booth which had been already placed on record in the Court file. Since the lease deed has been executed by Gurpal Singh, the co-owner and there was no denial of relationship of landlord and tenant and the respondent being a co-owner as per the allotment letter, was entitled to file the petition. The ground of non-payment of property tax was alleged to have been inadvertently taken under Section 13-B of the Act and the landlords reserved their right to recover the same by filing petition under Section 13 of the Act. The need of the premises for personal requirement of landlord No.2 and his wife Vandana was addressed and it was alleged that the booth being centrally located and was exclusively owned by the immediate family and as such was suitable for personal use and no share had been transferred in the name of landlord No.2 in SCO No.183 to 185, Sector 8C, Chandigarh. Landlord No.2 had inherited only a small share after the demise of Sh.Niranjan Singh who had bequeathed his share in the name of landlord No.2 and the transfer had not yet been effected. Landlord No.2 had only 7% C.R. No.7026 of 2011 5 share in the SCO No. 10, Sector 26, Chandigarh given on rent for the last 6- 7 years. Booth No.110 of Sector 40C, Chandigarh was in the ownership of 25% and was also on rent and was required for the use and occupation of the wife of landlord No.3. The copies of lease deeds of the other commercial properties, viz., SCO No.183-185, Sector 8C,Chandigarh and SCO No. 10, Sector 26, Chandigarh were also appended, and accordingly, it was pleaded that the application seeking leave be dismissed.
5. The said reply was contested by filing re-joinder dated 21.01.2011 and it was again pleaded that landlord No.2 never disclosed to be the owner nor he let out as landlord, and therefore, he was not entitled to eviction and the right to seek leave to contest was re-asserted. It was, accordingly, pleaded that the landlords were guilty of concealment of relevant facts and they had let out other property and the facts therein showed that they could not seek the order of ejectment.
6. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, as noticed above, held that simply because landlords No.1 & 3 were not Non Resident Indians would not take away the rights of landlord No.2 to invoke the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act and the registered sale deed had been entered with the landlord No.1 on 31.01.1995 would not restrict the right of landlord No.2 to recover the possession under Section 13-B on the ground that the premises had not been let out by him but let out by his father, landlord No.1 since admittedly, all of them were co-owners as per the allotment letter dated 19.09.1995. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in Ravinder Pal Mohindra Vs. Gurbachan Singh & others 2006 (2) RCR (Rent) 211 and Surinder Mohan Aggarwal Vs. Krishan Mohan Madhok 2000 (2) RCR C.R. No.7026 of 2011 6 (Rent) 355. The ground of non-payment of property tax was also not to be a ground of eviction under Section 13-B of the Act, and accordingly, it was held that the ejectment could not be denied on this ground. The passport of landlord No.2, Major Kirat Singh was taken into consideration which had been issued by the government of USA and his place of birth had been shown as India, and accordingly, it was held that he was a person of Indian origin and fell within the definition of Section 2(dd) of the Act and could not be said that he had gone abroad on a pleasure trip. The fact of the petitioner having 7% share in SCO No.183/185 and having 25% share in booth No.110, Sector 40C was also taken into consideration and it was held that there was no concealment of the other properties by the petitioners and keeping in view the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Munish Saini JT 2005 (12) SC 442, it was held that there would be a presumption that the need of the landlord was genuine and bona fide and there was nothing on the record to show that the said presumption has been rebutted. The submission of the counsel for the tenant that the NRI landlord had not averred that he had returned or likely to come was without any basis since there was a specific averment that the landlord No.2 is wanting to stay in India and wanted to run their business. The ground of non-payment of rent was held not a ground to grant leave in the absence of any cogent material, and accordingly, since landlord No.2 was owner for more than 5 years before filing the application on 28.04.2010 as the allotment letter was dated 19.09.1985, it was held that he fell within the definition and was entitled to eviction under Section 13-B of the Act, and accordingly, the order was passed, while rejecting the application for leave to contest.
C.R. No.7026 of 2011 7
7. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh is not sustainable on the following grounds:
(i)It was submitted that the respondent-landlord had not pleaded specifically within the parameter of Section 2 (dd) of the Act and not pleaded that he had settled outside India for taking up employment and was carrying on business outside India,
(ii)The arrears of house tax had been claimed and the same could not be done so under Section 13-B of the Act.
(iii)The premises are jointly owned by landlords and all of them are not NRIs and therefore the co-owner cannot file the petition.
(iv)The lease deed was only with the father and there was no relationship as landlord and tenant and the letting out was by landlord No.1.
(v)The applicability of Section 13-B of the Act having been extended to Chandigarh is a subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. Accordingly, reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Kundan Singh Vs. Lal Singh 2004 (3) PLR 530 to contend that it was a triable issue and leave to appeal has been wrongly rejected. Similarly, reliance was placed on Nelson Christopher Vs. Pritam Singh 2010 (1) PLR 311 to contend that the landlord was trying to surprise the tenant and conceal the ownership of other commercial properties.
9. The first submission of the counsel that the ingredient of Section 2(dd) have to be pleaded in the application under Section 13-B of the Act is without any basis since it has already been held in Baldev Singh's case (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court that under Section 13-B of C.R. No.7026 of 2011 8 the Act, the landlord has to allege that he is a NRI and that he has intention to return to India and the requirement of the accommodation by him is genuine and that he is owner of the property for the last 5 years and the pleading should confine to the language of Section 13-B of the Act. Paragraph 23 of the judgment in Baldev Singh's case (supra) reads as under:-
"On the interpretation given by us and on a plain reading of the provisions, once in a lifetime possession is given to a NRI to get one building vacated in a summary manner. A Non-resident Indian landlord is required to prove that:- (i) he is a NRI; (ii) that he has returned to India permanently or for the temporary period; (iii) requirement of the accommodation by him or his dependent is genuine and; (iv) he is the owner of the property for the last five years before the institution of the proceedings for ejectment before the Controller. The tenant's affidavit asking for leave to contest the NRI landlord's application should confine to the grounds which NRI landlord is required to prove, to get ejectment under Section 13-B of the Act. The Controller's power to give leave to contest the application filed under Section 13-B circumscribe to the grounds and inquiry to the aspects specified in the Section 13-B. The tenant would be entitled for leave to contest only if he makes a strong case to challenge those grounds. Inquiry would be confined to Section 13-B and no other aspect shall be considered by the Controller".
10. In the present case, the landlords were 3 in number and have C.R. No.7026 of 2011 9 specifically averred that landlord No.2 is an NRI and wants to permanently settle in India and as such, requires the booth for his personal use and occupation where he along with his wife, Vandana wants to start their business. In the reply to the application to contest also, the fact that petitioner No.2, Major Kirat Singh is an NRI and has been issued an American passport, which was attached in the petition was duly noticed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 13-B of the Act have been met and the submission of the counsel that the said Non Resident Indian has gone abroad for the first time and does not fulfill the requirement as per Section 2(dd) are without any basis. Section 2 (dd) only defines the Non Resident Indian and as mentioned above, the pleadings of landlord No.2 in the eviction petition are very clear to show that the said landlord falls within the definition of Non Resident Indian who is of Indian origin having served in the Indian Army as a Major, and thereafter, obtained an American Passport and thus he is permanently/temporarily settled outside India. The said NRI landlord is not required to state in his petition that he had taken up employment outside India or was carrying on business or vocation outside India and it is the conditions in Section 13-B of the Act which are to be fulfilled and from the perusal of the petition, it is clear that the landlord No.2 has clearly pleaded the necessary conditions of Section 13-B of the Act. The plea of house tax being not paid was a mere plea and ejectment cannot be granted under Section 13-B of the Act on that ground and even otherwise, in the reply, it has been mentioned that the landlord does not press the said ground which was inadvertently taken and reserves his right to take the same by filing a petition under Section 13 of the Act.
C.R. No.7026 of 2011 10
11. It was argued that property was jointly owned by the other landlords, who are not NRIs and, therefore, co-owners are not entitled to file a petition under Section 13-B of the Act. The submission of the counsel cannot be accepted in view of the fact that it is settled proposition of law that a co-owner can always prefer a petition for eviction with the consent of the other co-owners. In the present case, the other two co-owners are also party to the petition. Admittedly, there is a letter of allotment dated 19.08.1995 in favour of Major Kirat Singh who is a NRI, and therefore, once he is the owner, he is entitled for evicting the tenanted premises on the ground of his personal necessity under Section 13-B of the Act being a co- owner of the property in question and the other co-owners have given their consent and are also party in the same petition. The submission of the counsel that since the property was let out by his father, he has no right or locus standi for invoking the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act is also without any basis. This Court in Ravinder Pal Mohindra's (supra) has held that a landlord being a co-owner of the rented premises can file the ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity and he has locus standi to file the petition for eviction of the tenanted premises for his own right or on behalf of the other co-owners as an agent. The consent of other co-owners is presumed unless it is shown that the other co-owners are not agreeable to eject the tenant. This Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and others v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Smt. Savitri Agarwalla, (2004)3 SCC 178 and Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Maninder Lal Jain JT 2006 (2) 620 to hold that an NRI is entitled to file a petition under Section 13-B of the Act. In the same judgment, the other issues were C.R. No.7026 of 2011 11 also decided regarding letting out to the tenant. It was held that the Non Resident Indian fulfilling all the requirements of Section 13-B of the Act and the said provisions having been fulfilled and the property was let out by his predecessor or his co-owners would entitle him to file an ejectment petition. The relevant paragraph reads as under:-
"Following the ratio of Mohinder Prasad Jain's case and India Umbrella Manufacturing Co's case (supra), when a petition is filed by the landlord for eviction in the capacity as a co-owner, in agreement with the other co-owners, the same cannot be termed as not maintainable. In the present case, the petitioner has produced enough material to indicate that he is a co-owner of the property pursuant to the decree of the civil court dated 5.10.1978. The name of the petitioner has already been included in the Municipal record as a co-owner. Thus, the observation of the learned Rent Controller that the dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant has to be decided by adducing evidence is contrary to the principle of law. In view of the ratio of the ruling in Mohinder Prasad jain's case (supra) a NRI who is a co-owner of the tenanted premises is entitled to file a petition Under Section 13-B of the Act."
11. Subsequently a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Bachan Kaur and others Vs. Kabal Singh and another 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 368 framed the following question and answered it as under:-
"Whether NRI/landlord who is a co-owner with the otherlandlords, who do not have the same status, as that of NRI can maintain a petition for eviction of the tenant from the C.R. No.7026 of 2011 12 property jointly owned by all of them?"
"10. A co-owner is owner of each part of the property in husband like manner with other co-owners. He is entitled to seek ejectment of tenant in premises for benefit and for the benefit of all other co-owners. Such right is subject to one exception that none of the remaining co-owner objects to such action of the petitioning co-owner. If one of the owners happens to be a NRI, he does not relinquish his character and status as that of co-owner. Thus an order of ejectment obtained by a NRI - co-owner will bind other co-owners but will not entitle other NRI and/or an co-owner to seek ejectment of tenant from another building either owned solely by such co- owner or jointly with other persons as co-owner in exercise of right of eviction granted to an NRI by Section 13-B of the Punjab Act. Thus in respect of first question of law, it is held that a co-owner, who is Non-Resident Indian, even when other co-owners are not Non-Resident Indians, can maintain a petition for ejectment for the benefit of all the co-owners.
12. That on the issue of let out, it was argued that Section 13-B talks about the letting out and in the present case letting out was not by the landlord no.2 but was by a registered deed by Gurpal Singh, who was landlord no.1 and what was stated in the lease deed was that he was sole owner and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and it was a triable issue. This question again has been answered in the judgment of Ravinder Pal Mohindra's case (supra) and it has been held as under:-
C.R. No.7026 of 2011 13
"12. Whether a person, who has "let" out the premises in dispute is entitled to recover immediate possession:
Mr. Ashwani Chopra, learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that it is not the case of the landlord in the present case that the property was let out by the petitioner to the tenant, which is sine qua non, to file a petition Under Section 13B of the Act.
I have carefully considered the said contention of Mr. Chopra in context to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra). After referring to the provisions of Sections 13B (1, 2 and 3) along with Section 19 (2B) of the Act and procedure in Section 18A (4, 5, 6 & 8) in context to the objective of the legislation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the scope of inquiry while considering the application Under Section 13B of the Act, the Rent Controller is to be satisfied (i) that the landlord is NRI, (ii) he is returned to India permanently or for temporary period (iii) there is genuine requirement of the accommodation by him or his dependent and (iv) that he is owner of the property for the last five years before the institution of the proceedings for ejectment.
The first ingredient that he is owner of the property for the last five years would imply that he can file an ejectment application only if a period of five years has elapsed after acquiring the right of ownership or co-ownership of the building let out. In view of the settled principle of law that letting out by the co- C.R. No.7026 of 2011 14 owner would be letting out on behalf of other co-owners. In case the arguments of Mr. Chopra are presumed to be correct, then the natural consequence of the interpretation put forth by him would be that a person, who has become owner of the property beyond the period of five years by purchase, natural inheritance or otherwise would be disentitled to file a petition Under Section 13B of the Act. This does not ever seem to be the intention of the legislature, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh's case has not held that NRI landlord is required to have himself let out the demised premises prior to five years of acquiring ownership. Keeping in view the interpretation of the provisions of Sections 13B and 18 of the Act by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra), the term "let out by him" in Section 13B of the Act would not mean that NRI filing a petition Under Section 13B of the Act will be deprived of the benefit to recover the immediate possession on the ground that the building had not been let out by him. A non Resident Indian fulfilling all the other requirements of Section 13B(1) of the Act will be entitled to seek eviction under the said provisions even if the property had been let out by his predecessor-in-interest or his co-owner."
13. Similarly in the Division Bench judgment in Smt. Bachan Kaur's case (supra), the following question had been framed and answered as under:-
"Whether the premises from which eviction is sought under Section 13-B of the Act is to be let out by NRI/landlord or his C.R. No.7026 of 2011 15 duly authorized person acting on his behalf, or it can also include the letting by some other co-owner or predecessor-in- interest in their own right and not under the authority of NRI/landlord?"
"17. In the Punjab Act, as originally enacted, the word owner is not used in the entire Act. Section 13-B of the Punjab Act confers a right of eviction to an owner for the first time. Therefore, an ordinary meaning of such expression has to be applied while interpreting the provisions of the Punjab Act. The proviso to sub-section (1) o f Section 13-B of the Punjab Act, regulates the right of eviction of such owner i.e. after a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner of such a building. The proviso is an exception to the substantive provision when it restricts right of such owner to seek eviction after five years and is explanatory, when it provides that an owner shall be entitled to seek eviction after five years of becoming owner. The right of eviction under the Punjab Act, has been given to an owner in respect of residential, scheduled or non residential building let out by him or her, required for his or her use or for the use of anyone ordinarily living with or dependent upon him or her. The proviso explains that an owner is entitled to seek ejectment after five years of acquiring title. It is well settled that all words in the statute have to be given meaning. The argument that an NRI is entitled to seek eviction after five years of becoming owner only if the tenant has been inducted by him does not serve the purport of the Act. If such C.R. No.7026 of 2011 16 meaning is assigned, the right of eviction given to NRI becomes otiose. Therefore, restricting the right of eviction to an owner who has let out the building alone cannot be reconciled with the proviso. The harmonious construction of proviso and the substantive provision is possible by accepting the argument that the tenant need not be necessarily inducted by the petitioner- owner more so when a tenancy is interest in the immoveable property transferred with the property itself.
18. The ownership of the building is the necessary condition for maintaining the eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Punjab Act. The letting out by the petitioner is not a sine-qua- non to maintain eviction petition in terms of the Punjab Act. One can acquire ownership right by virtue of a purchase or by inheritance. Though in our opinion, the title derived by inheritance is legal consequence and should exclude limit of five years, but since the said question has not been debated before us, we so (say) no more in the present case. We leave such question to be decided in an appropriate case later. Therefore, an owner has a right to seek eviction after the period of five years from the date of becoming owner of such building, irrespective of the fact that the building has been let out by him or her. Once a person has become owner of the property, the tenancy rights being attached to the building stand transferred to him in the same manner as all other rights to a building, which has been purchased by him or her. The object of granting summary right of eviction to a Non Resident Indian is to C.R. No.7026 of 2011 17 provide mechanism for possession of their own residential building, as an exception to rigid legal provisions of the existing provisions of the law. Such right is manifested when right of eviction is conferred on an owner. If the argument of the learned counsel for the tenants is to be accepted that the intention was to restrict the right of eviction to only those NRI's who have let out the premises, such interpretation would negative the very purpose of the insertion of the mechanism of summary eviction contemplated under Section 13- B of the Act. The expression let out by him in the context of Section 13-B of the Punjab Act, does not require strict interpretation as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Nathi Devi's case (supra), as such interpretation is neither warranted nor advances the purpose of granting summary right of eviction under Section 13-B of the Punjab Act. Therefore, the Judgment in Nathi Devi's case (supra) cannot be applied to the cases arising out of the Punjab Act."
14. The last submission of the counsel is that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the applicability of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act to Chandigarh. The said provisions of Section 13-B of the Act having been extended to Chandigarh legally was a subject matter of challenge before Division Bench of the Court in Civil Writ Petition No.15378 of 2011 Asha Chawla & others Vs. Union o f India and others decided on 23.8.2011 The said petition has been dismissed and the operation of the aforesaid judgment has not been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against which the SLP is pending. In view of C.R. No.7026 of 2011 18 the binding precedent of the Division Bench and the matter having been finally decided by this Court, the said issues cannot be gone into as it has become already final for this Court. The judgments referred to by the counsel for the petitioner in Kundan Singh (supra) pertains to a case where the Rent Controller, Chandigarh had granted leave as there were issues regarding the partition on the basis of which the NRI landlord was seeking eviction, and accordingly, it was held that it would give rise to a triable issue and the petition of the landlord challenging the leave was dismissed by this Court. In the present case, there is a letter of allotment in favour of the landlord himself, and therefore, the status of being a NRI and a owner of the property is not in question. Similarly, the judgment of Pardeep Kumar Sharma Vs. Gurbax Singh (2010-2) 158 PLR 11 (S.N.) is also to the same effect that in the absence of any documents certifying the status of respondents as a NRI, leave is to be granted. In the present case, admittedly, the landlord No.2 has placed on record his American passport and had also served in the Indian Army. Similarly, Nelson Christopher's case (supra) also pertains to where the petitioner-tenant was successful in showing that the landlord had concealed that he owned and possessed other properties in the urban area concerned, and accordingly, this Court granted leave to contest and set aside the orders of the Rent Controller. In the present case, the landlord-petitioner No.2 has given details of the other properties which he owns and the fact that they are already in occupation of other tenants and it was also noticed that the share of the landlord No. 2 in other properties is to the extent of 7% in SCO No.10 Sector 26 and no share has been transferred by petitioner No.2 regarding SCO No.183 & 185 and he has inherited a small share after the death of Niranjan Singh and transfer C.R. No.7026 of 2011 19 has not been yet effected by the Estate Officer.
15. The question of bonafides had been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra) and has been held that if the landlord does not use the property for which it was being got vacated, he would be liable to be proceeded against under Section 19(2-B) and also liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or a fine which may extent to Rs.1000/- or both. Similarly a safeguard has also been provided in Section 13-B(3) which gives the tenant a right to file an application for restoration of possession if the owner transfers or lets out the property within five years from taking possession.
16. Regarding, the adjoining booth, it is clarified that the booth is also on rent and is required for personal use and occupation of the wife of Tirath Singh, landlord No.3. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there is concealment on the part of the landlord-petitioner No.2. The provisions of Section 13-B of the Act have been fully complied with and the order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Since the legal position has also been settled by this Court in Ravinder Pal Mohindra's case (supra) and Smt. Bachan Kaur's case (supra) as noticed above, no occasion arises for interfering in the well reasoned order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh which is up-held.
17. The tenant is given three months' time to vacate the premises in question and eviction order would not be executed before three months from today.
18. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
12.3..2012 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh/Pka JUDGE