IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction of tenant – Rent Controller can grant leave to defend if affidavit filed by tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle landlord from obtaining an Order for Recovery of Possession.

JUDGMENT :

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. The appellant-Mukesh Kumar is the tenant of Shop No. 5 at Guru Amardas Chowk, Model Town, Jalandhar. In the instant Civil Appeal, he challenges the Order of Eviction from Shop No. 5 under Section 13-B of the Act.¹ [East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949]

2. S. Kuldeep Singh, son of S. Harbhajan Singh-owner, filed Eviction Application No. 6 of 2003 against the appellant-tenant for the subject premises before the Rent Controller, Jalandhar. Parties are referred to as Mukesh Kumar and S. Kuldeep Singh for the appellant and the respondent, respectively. The eviction case is that S. Kuldeep Singh’s father, late S. Harbhajan Singh, owned the tenanted premises. S. Kuldeep Singh inherited the ownership of the tenanted premises along with other legal heirs of S. Harbhajan Singh. The monthly rent is Rs. 225/-. Mukesh Kumar continued to be the tenant of S. Kuldeep Singh even after the demise of S. Harbhajan Singh. The averments in the Application under Section 13-B of the Act are that S. Kuldeep Singh, born in India, was raised and educated in England. He was working for gains in England and was rendered without work due to recession. Therefore, he had come to India to make a living. It is averred that Shop No. 3 in the same complex, belongs to S. Kuldeep Singh. An application filed for eviction of Shop No. 3 ended in dismissal. Now, he seeks eviction of tenanted premises in Shop No. 5 for doing business. The categorical averment is that the owner, his brothers and his mother intend to do business in the complex’s shops by converting the shop into a proper showroom. The Eviction Application has an averment that S. Kuldeep Singh has no other premises in his possession or occupation. Hence, the Petition for Eviction under Section 13-B of the Act.

3. The case set out by Mukesh Kumar for leave to defend Eviction Application is stated as follows:

3.1. The tenanted premises are part of a big building, and Shop No. 3 is in possession of M/s Arcade, represented by Kishan Lal Chaudhari. Nasib Kaur, mother of S. Kuldeep Singh, filed a Petition for Ejectment of Shop No. 3. The petition was dismissed. S. Kuldeep Singh is neither the owner nor the landlord of the tenanted premises, and the Eviction Petition at the instance of S. Kuldeep Singh is, therefore, not maintainable.

3.2. Section 2(dd) of the Act defines a non-resident Indian, and S. Kuldeep Singh is not a Non-Resident Indian. S. Kuldeep Singh cannot seek eviction of the subject premises under Section 13-B of the Act. Malafides vitiated the eviction proceeding, for S. Kuldeep Singh need not come to do business in India. Section 13-B, eviction at the instance of S. Kuldeep Singh, is not maintainable for this reason as well. Curiously, Mukesh Kumar states that S. Kuldeep Singh offered to sell the tenanted premises. Still, the transaction could not go forward, for S. Kuldeep Singh demanded twenty lakh rupees as sale consideration for the tenanted premises. This averment is inconsistent with the other averment viz. that S. Kuldeep Singh is not the owner of the tenanted premises. For brevity, we refer to the limited grounds raised by the tenant for leave to defend the petition.

4. The Rent Controller, by Order dated 14.05.2004, rejected the Leave Petition and ordered the eviction of Mukesh Kumar. Tenant filed Civil Revision No. 3101 of 2004 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court dismissed the Revision on 05.05.2008. Hence, the Civil Appeal.

5. Learned Counsel Kavita Wadia, appearing for Mukesh Kumar, contends that the Order of Eviction, through the summary procedure under Section 13-B of the Act, is wholly illegal and unsustainable. The tenanted premises are part of a big building the family members of S. Kuldeep Singh own shops. The Rent Controller ordered the eviction of one of the shop rooms in favour of a family member of S. Kuldeep Singh. The consequence of such an Eviction Order in favour of a family member is that S. Kuldeep