Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Baldev Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini on 5 October, 2005
13. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 13B of the Act which
would be material for resolving the controversy arising in the present
revision petition provides that the landlord claiming benefit of provisions
of Section 13B of the Act is required to establish that the applicant is a
NRI and is owner of the subject premises for a period of more than 5
years on the date when he applies for eviction. The landlord has to
plead and explain that the premises are required by him for his own
and/or for the use and occupation of anyone ordinarily living with and
dependent upon him. The benefit under Section 13B of the Act is
available only once during the life time of such owner. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra) had laid down as
follows:-
Lakhwinder Kumar vs Pavitter Kaur (Dead) Through Lrs on 7 September, 2009
Reliance was also placed upon the statement of PW1-Parvinder Singh-
landlord who came to India to depose regarding his case as pleaded.
Scanning through the statement of PW1, it was submitted that in the
cross-examination, it had specifically come that the petitioner had gone
to Italy on 9.7.2000 and the presentation of the rent petition was on
22.10.2001. Thus, in such circumstances, it could not be said that the
petitioner was not a NRI. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005
(2) RLR 488 and of this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar v. Pavitter Kaur
(dead) through LRs 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 279, Guriqbal Singh and
another v. Gurjaib Singh 2011(3) PLR 85 and Kanta Devi and another
v. Mehta Singh and another, 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 716. It was
submitted that the Rent Controller had erred in holding that the landlord
was required to show that he had been a NRI for a period of five years.
This was never the requirement as envisaged under the provisions of
Section 2(dd) or Section 13-B of the Act. It was also submitted that the
landlord in his statement had specifically stated that he required the
demised premises for himself and for his family members. Once that
Singh Gurbachan
2013.12.05 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CR No. 318 of 2006 -5-
was so, the order of eviction ought to have been passed by the Rent
Controller.
Section 2 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Kanta Devi And Another vs Mehta Singh And Another on 25 November, 2009
Reliance was also placed upon the statement of PW1-Parvinder Singh-
landlord who came to India to depose regarding his case as pleaded.
Scanning through the statement of PW1, it was submitted that in the
cross-examination, it had specifically come that the petitioner had gone
to Italy on 9.7.2000 and the presentation of the rent petition was on
22.10.2001. Thus, in such circumstances, it could not be said that the
petitioner was not a NRI. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005
(2) RLR 488 and of this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar v. Pavitter Kaur
(dead) through LRs 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 279, Guriqbal Singh and
another v. Gurjaib Singh 2011(3) PLR 85 and Kanta Devi and another
v. Mehta Singh and another, 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 716. It was
submitted that the Rent Controller had erred in holding that the landlord
was required to show that he had been a NRI for a period of five years.
This was never the requirement as envisaged under the provisions of
Section 2(dd) or Section 13-B of the Act. It was also submitted that the
landlord in his statement had specifically stated that he required the
demised premises for himself and for his family members. Once that
Singh Gurbachan
2013.12.05 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CR No. 318 of 2006 -5-
was so, the order of eviction ought to have been passed by the Rent
Controller.
1