Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 1909
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
Renu Tiwari
Versus
Balbir Dub
Civil Revision No. 1674 of 2007,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 5, 2009
The judgment establishes the importance of proving NRI status and bona fide requirement for property under Section 13-B of the Act, and highlights the special rights and restrictions conferred on NRIs in ejectment cases.
Headnote:
NRI - Ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13-B - Section 2(dd)
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an ejectment petition against the tenant under Section 13-B of the Act, claiming to be a Non-Resident-Indian (NRI) and requiring the demised property for his own bona fide use. The Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition and directed the tenant to vacate the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord had provided sufficient evidence to prove his NRI status and bona fide requirement for the demised property, as per the provisions of Section 13-B and the definition of NRI under Section 2(dd) of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the landlord's NRI status and bona fide requirement for the property were proven, and whether the Rent Controller's decision to accept the ejectment petition was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord's NRI status was established based on the evidence provided, and his requirement for the property was deemed bona fide under Section 13-B of the Act. The court also emphasized the special rights conferred on NRIs under the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's revision petition, affirming the Rent Controller's decision to accept the ejectment petition.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
1. Having lost die legal battle, petitioner/tenant-Renu Tiwari wife of Rakesh Tiwari (hereinafter to be referred as the tenant) has directed the present revision petition against the impugned order dated 10.01.2007 vide which the Rent Controller has accepted the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") filed by Balbir Dub son of Sohan Lal Dub-respondent-landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the landlord).
2. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of the present revision petition and emanating from the record is, that originally the landlord filed a petition for the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises invoking the special provisions of Section 13-B of the Act, inter alia, pleading that he is its owner/landlord. It was rented out to the tenant vide agreement dated 30.09.2005 for a period of 11 months which had also expired on 31.07.2006. As per agreement, he sent a notice to the tenant.
3. The case set up by the landlord in brief insofar as relevant was that he is a Non- Resident-Indian and had gone abroad for his settlement. He is residing in Manila along with his wife and two children having foreign passports. He also possesses immigration certificate duly issued by the authorities of Republic of Philippines. Thus, he falls within the definition of an NRI and also a member of NRI Sabha, Punjab. He requires the demised property/shop for his own. bona fide use as he wants to settle in India and start his business of Readymade Garments.
4. Leveling a variety of allegations in all, according to the landlord, he is an NRI and required the demised property for his own personal requirement and is entitled to recover the possession under Section 13-B of the Act. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the landlord filed the eviction petition against the tenant in the manner indicated hereinabove.
5. Having completed all the codal formalities, the Rent Controller summoned the tenant. As soon as the tenant appeared, in the meantime, she filed an application for leave to contest the ejectment petition, inter alia, pleading that the grounds for ejectment set-forth by the landlord are false and he has not come to the Court with clean hands. According to the tenant that the landlord is not a Non-Resident-Indian and is only a visitor to Philippines, he owns other residential building and shop in the same area, so much so, the tenant has denied the ownership of the landlord as the demised premises is stated to be already sold by him. In all according to the tenant, the landlord is neither a specified landlord (NRI) nor his requirement/need is bona fide. That being so, the tenant prayed that she be granted leave to contest the ejectment petition. She has also filed an affidavit in support of the application.
6. Controverting the allegations contained in the aforesaid application of the tenant and reiterating the pleadings contained his original ejectment petition, the landlord filed reply and prayed for dismissal of the application for permission to leave to defend the ejectment petition. However, the landlord clarified that the other shops are not suitable for his business.
7. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for leave to contest, filed by the tenant and accepted the ejectment petition of the landlord under Section 13-B of the Act and directed the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to him(landlord) within two months vide impugned order dated 10.01.2007.
8. The tenant did not feel satisfied with the composite impugned ejectment order and filed the present revision petition. That is how I am seized of the matter.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record of the case and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, as there is no merit, therefore, the present revision pet
