IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) It is not for tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for proposed business venture or to suggest that available space with landlord will be adequate.
(2) There is no bar for a Non-resident Indian to get a building of choice vacated.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The landlords/appellants challenge the judgment dated 6.3.2020 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereunder the respondents/tenants were granted leave to contest the eviction proceedings, overturning the decision of the Rent Controller, Khanna, whereby leave to contest was refused to the tenants.

3. The appellants are the owners of the premises and the two shops therein for which, the eviction proceedings were initiated against the tenants. The subject shops on the ground floor of the building were situated in the urban area of Khanna. The appellants are Non-Resident Indians (NRI) within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). They sought immediate recovery of possession of the rented premises by invoking the provisions of Section 13B read with Section 18A of the Act. The landlord moved the Rent Controller claiming that the appellant No. 1 desires to start the business of sale, purchase and manufacture of furniture and for the proposed business, the property already in possession of the landlord, is insufficient. It was also indicated that after shops in question are vacated, the building will be renovated as per the requirement of the proposed business.

4. On receipt of notice, the two tenants filed identical application seeking leave to contest, as provided under Section 18A(5) of the Act. The tenants alleged that the appellants have failed to disclose their past litigation with M/s Sudarshan Interior Decorators qua Rent Application No. 6/2005 and also the other litigation with Diwan Chand qua Rent Application No. 32/2005. As the landlord have secured possession of the two shops through those litigations, it was projected that the landlords are in occupation of four shops adjoining each other and in that available space, the furniture business can be conveniently conducted.

5. In their reply to the pleadings of the tenants, the appellants contended that there is no concealment of necessary facts in the eviction petitions, inasmuch as the concerned proceedings were decided much prior to the institution of the present proceedings under Section 13B of the Act. It was further stated that the shops in possession of the landlords were disclosed but the space is insufficient for the proposed business. Therefore, the shop premises in occupation of the present tenants are needed to be secured.

6. The Rent Controller considered the rival submissions and noted that the three necessary ingredients for initiating proceedings under Section 13B of the Act were satisfied by the appellants. Firstly the landlord is NRI, secondly, the landlord has returned to India; and thirdly, the landlord has been the owner of the property for five years. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also found between the contesting parties. It was further noticed that the previous eviction proceedings against M/s. Sudarshan Interior Decorators and against Diwan Chand was filed under Section 13 and not under Section 13B of the Act and since they were decided much earlier, non-disclosure of those proceedings will not affect the merit of the present proceedings, under Section 13B of the Act. The Rent Controller rejected the objection of the tenants that a portion of the premises would be sufficient for the proposed business.

7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Rent Controller refusing leave to contest, the tenants filed separate Revision Petitions before the High Court to challenge the orders of the Rent Controller. The High Court in the impugned judgment had focused on the fact that the landlord had earlier recovered possession of two adjoining shops through proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the Act and those shops are lying vacant. The Court also noted that the first floor of the tenanted premises is let out to a bank for which no eviction petition was filed. It was accordingly held that leave to contest should be granted to the tenants. The o