Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.08 seconds)Section 13A in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Zenobia Bhanot vs P.K. Vasudeva And Anr on 14 November, 1995
In Zenobia Bhanot's case (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if a residential building or scheduled building is let out in parts to different tenants, it is open for the specified landlord to get ejectment of all those tenants by filing different petitions. In the said decision, a residential building was let out by the specified landlord to different tenants in four parts. Four different ejectment petitions were filed by his wife under Section 13A of the Act. Those four petitions were tried before different Rent Controllers. The learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that under the second proviso of Section 13A of the Act, the specified landlord is entitled to recover possession of only one residential building i.e. one part of the building and he cannot seek ejectment of all the four tenants. He has to make a choice in this regard. The said interpretation of the learned Single Judge was approved by the Division Bench of this Court. Against the judgment of the Division Bench, the landlord Zenobia Bhanot filed appeal before the Supreme Court, wherein it was held as under: -
Baldev Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini on 5 October, 2005
11. I also do not find any force in the second contention raised by counsel for the petitioners. The Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra) has held that under the Act, a special procedure for NRI landlords for getting immediate possession of a residential building, scheduled building and/or non-residential building for their personal use has been made to achieve a legislative object, which has been explained in the Statement of Object and Reasons appended with the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance 2000. By the said amendment, a special class has been created giving special right to them to recover immediate possession from the tenants occupying their premises by providing special procedure, provided such premises were required by them for their use or for the use by their dependents. If an ejectment application is filed by an NRI landlord under Section 13B of the Act, the Rent Controller has been given power to grant leave to contest such application, which is restricted by the condition that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of recovery of possession. The tenant can contest the ejectment application on the ground that need of the landlord is not bona fide. In the proceedings taken up by an NRI landlord under Section 13B of the Act for eviction of the tenant, the Court shall presume that the landlords' need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide, but the said presumption is subject to the right of tenant to rebut it with strong and cogent evidence. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in favour of the landlord. In this case, in my opinion, the petitioners-tenans have failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the respondent-landlord that his requirement of the demised premises is bona fide. In my opinion, the tenants have not placed on record any strong and cogent material rebutting the strong presumption in favour of the landlord. Undisputedly, the respondent is an NRI. He has returned to India. He retires the building in question for his personal use as he wants to open a show room of old and new cars. His case is covered by the requirement of Section 13B of the Act. According to him, the total area of the entire building is required by him for the aforesaid purpose. Merely because, the landlord is owning some other property in the Foca1 Point is no ground to hold that his need is not genuine. It is the choice of the landlord to get one building vacated under Section 13B of the Act out of two or more buildings. The landlord has already returned to India and opened his office in the 5 shops in his possession and he wants to construct the show room in the remaining portion of the building. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it can not be said that the need of the respondent-landlord is not bona fide, as alleged by the petitioners.
Section 18A in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
1