Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.25 seconds)

Shanta Rani vs Nasib Kaur on 5 October, 2023

5. The Rent Controller, by Order dated 19.02.2009, dismissed the Application, among other things, by holding that the ejectment is not filed seeking eviction of two distinct premises, because the Respondent has withdrawn the relief made against Shop Room No.1. After perusing the passport filed as Annexure-A, the Learned Rent Controller recorded that the Respondent was of Indian origin and is presently holding the passport of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the Respondent satisfies the definition of a Non-Resident Indian. The Appellant’s contention on the ownership of Shop Room No. 2 is met by accepting Annexure- B i.e., sale deed, that Nasib Kaur - Respondent owns the tenanted premises. Therefore, the denial of the relationship of the landlady and tenant is untenable. 4 The Rent Controller relied on the reported Judgments in Sat Pal v. Om Prakash2 to apply the interpretation of the words ‘Non-Resident Indian’ and held a finding in favour of the Respondent. The Rent Controller answers the maintainability of the petition by the Respondent from the United Kingdom by holding that even before eviction, an NRI is not required to be physically present in India. On examination of the definition of ‘NRI’ and the requirement of Section 13-B, we hasten to add at this juncture of our consideration that the Rent Controller rightly records the said finding. Adverting to other grounds raised in the defence, that the Respondent filed several Eviction Applications, it is concluded that the filing of a Petition by S. Kuldeep Singh against Mukesh Kumar does not debar Nasib Kaur-Respondent from maintaining a petition under Section 13-B of the Act, against Shanta Rani/tenant. The last objection of the Appellant is that the Eviction Application is filed against a dead person. The Rent Controller, by referring to the cause title, held that the Application is not filed against the dead person, but the Legal Representatives of the deceased are arrayed as parties. Having filed the reply to the summary eviction with the standing shown in the cause title, the Appellant herein ought not to be heard that the petition was filed against a dead person. The filing of an Eviction Petition against M/s. Arcade under an erroneous view does not make the Respondent an owner of such shop. The Learned Rent Controller dismissed the Application. 2 (2007) 2 Civil Court Cases 309
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1