SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(P&H) 2951

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Vinod K.Sharma, J.
Narinder Singh
Versus
Kirpa Singh
Civil Revision No. 575 of 2004,
Decided On : JULY 21, 2006

Eviction - NRI Landlord - Petition can only be filed against the tenant on account of bonafide requirement.

Headnote:East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13-B, 18-A - Leave to Contest - Eviction of tenants - NRIlandlord - Land lord proved that he was NRI, owner of the property for more than 5 years and he requires the premises for his bonafide use - Rejection of application for leave to contest by Rent Controller - Admission of relationship of landlord and tenant - No relief can be granted to the petitioners - tenant - Revision dismissed.

       East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13-B, 18-A - Eviction petition - NRI landlord - Petition can only be filed against the tenant on account of bonafide requirement. (Para 11)

       

Judgment

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against he order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide which the application filed by the petitioner was rejected and application filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) was allowed and the petitioners were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of the order. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner filed petition under Section 13-B of the Act for ejectment of the respondents from the building bearing No. 6-A near Sodal Mandir, Sodal Nagar, Jalandhar. It was alleged in the application that the respondent No. 1 Manjit Singh was inducted as a tenant vide agreement dated 26.3.1979 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- for a fixed period and thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,500/- per month which was paid up to 31.3.1997. It was the case of the petitioners that they were owner/landlords qua the building premises in dispute and that the property in dispute was ancestral property of the petitioners and mutation of the property has already been sanctioned in the name of the petitioners on the basis of inheritance. The petitioners are NRIs and have been residing in England and that the petitioners alongwith their sons were running business of import and export in the name of Dhillon Trimming Company. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to know that respondent No. 1 has sub-let the premises in dispute and parted with possession to one Narender Singh, Darshpal Singh and Mohinder Pal Singh, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 against the terms of the agreement without the knowledge of the petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners that the respondent also made additions, and alterations in the property in dispute. The case set up the petitioner was that Manjit Singh, respondent No. 1 has shifted to new premises i.e. 10-A, New Grain Market, G.T. Road, Jalandhar where he has opened a store in the name of Punja Khad Store by running business there. The ejectment was sought on the grounds that the premises in dispute were required by the petitioners for their personal use and occupation as they have decided to settle in Jalandhar City. They have decided to settle in room in the building in dispute and start their own business of import and export.

2. On notice having been issued, the respondents moved an application for leave to contest stating therein that the petitioner was served with ordinary summons on 21.5.2001. It was further the case of the respondent-petitioner that the notice was not sent in proper form and there was, thus, no notice to respondent No. 1 in the eyes of law. The leave to defend was sought on the following grounds:

That there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and agreement dated 26.3.1979 was never acted upon and respondent No. 1 never became tenant in the property in dispute under the petitioners. The demised premises was taken on rent by M/s Gee Ess Engg. Works situated at 6-A, Sodal Nagar, near Sodal Mandir, Jalandhar, through its partners from the petitioners and since 1.4.1979 the rent is being paid on the basis of cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank, Industrial Area, Jalandhar and said rent was being received by Shiv Dev Singh, representative of the petitioners. Electricity charges are also paid since the inception of the tenancy by Gee Ess Engg. Works. At no point of time. Manjit Singh, respondent No. 1 ever paid rent to the petitioners nor the petitioners ever received the rent from Manjit Singh since April 1979. Partnership deed also came into existence w.e.f. with Darshapal Singh, Amarbir Singh, Tirath Singh, Manjit Kaur w/o Narinder Singh, another Manjit Kaur w/o Manjit Singh, Parkash Kaur and Mohinder Pal Singh and till date the rent has been paid from the bank account of Gee Ess En



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top