Eviction - Leave to defend - A mere assertion on the part of tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlords favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 31.7.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend and thus, ordering the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute.

2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) seeking ejectment of the respondent/petitioner from Shop No. BXIII 47415 on the ground that the respondent was tenant in the demised premises on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- vide Rent Note dated 4.2.1994. It was claimed that the respondents herein i.e. husband and wife are Non Resident Indians as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act and the petition for eviction was filed by respondent No. 1 on her behalf and also on behalf of respondent No. 2 being his attorney. It was claimed in the rent petition that the landlord who was Non Resident Indian had a bona fide intention to settle now permanently in India and required the demised shop for their bona fide use and occupation as they wanted to run the business jointly in the demised shop. It was claimed that the respondents have no other property in their possession in the area of Jalandhar and that they had also not vacated any commercial property in the area of Jalandhar since 1949. It was also claimed that the petitioner was in arrears of rent since 1994 for which separate petition was filed.

3. On notice the petitioner appeared and moved an application for leave to contest the petition in which it was claimed that the petitioner was tenant for the last 18-19 years and respondent No. 2 was the real brother of the wife of the petitioner. It was also claimed that the rent was being deposited regularly in the bank account and rent up to 31.3.2004 stands deposited. It was further claimed that the respondents closed their account and did not receive the rent. It was further claimed that a cheque for Rs. 12,000/- was sent towards rent for one year but the same was received back un-encashed. Bona fide requirement of the respondents was disputed by the petitioner on the plea that they are British citizen and they have ceased to be Indian citizens and therefore, Indian Laws were not applicable. It was further claimed that family of the respondents was well settled in Britain and they had no intention to permanently return to India.

4. Learned Rent Controller rejected the application by holding that the respondents proved on record that they were Non Indian Residents and further they are intending to return to India and that they needed the property in dispute for their bona fide requirements. It was held that once the conditions as envisaged under Section 13-B of the Act were fulfilled the respondents were entitled to seek ejectment.

5. Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the finding on the plea that the petitioner-respondents have failed to prove that the premises were bona fide required for their use. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that once the entire family of the respondents was settled in England and they were getting social welfare security and also that they had better medical facilities in Britain, therefore, it cannot be said that their intention was bona fide. On these pleas it was contended that leave to defend ought to have been granted.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005(4) RCR(Civil) 492 : 2005(2) RCR(Rent) 470 (SC) : 2005(2) RLR 488 and special reference was made to paras No. 22 and 26 of the judgment which read as under :

"22. Then golden rule of construction is that when the words of legislation are plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to them. The basic, principle on which this rule is based since the words must have spoken as clearly to