Back
1991 Supreme(P&H) 813
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Bali, J.
Harjit Singh
Versus
Hav. Amb/assistant, Puran Singh (Retd.)
Civil Revision No. 2449 of 1990,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 5, 1991
The court held that the affidavit filed by the tenant did not disclose sufficient facts to entitle him to defend the eviction petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Headnote:
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT - SECTION 13-A - PERMISSION TO DEFEND EVICTION PETITION - AFFIDAVIT FILED BY TENANT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant challenged the order of the Rent Controller denying permission to defend an eviction petition filed against him by the landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The tenant claimed that the sale transaction through which the landlord acquired ownership was a sham and that the real owners were others who wanted to evict him.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the contents of the affidavit filed by the tenant and found that it did not support the claim that the real owners were others and that the landlord's name was inserted in the sale deed with the intention to provide an easy ground for eviction. The court also noted that the tenant had not raised the issue of the landlord's status as a specified landlord, which was a requirement for eviction under Section 13-A.
Issues: 1. Whether the affidavit filed by the tenant disclosed sufficient facts to entitle him to defend the eviction petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949? 2. Whether the landlord was a specified landlord as defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the contents of the affidavit did not support the tenant's claim that the real owners were others and that the landlord's name was inserted in the sale deed with the intention to provide an easy ground for eviction. The court also noted that the tenant had not raised the issue of the landlord's status as a specified landlord, which was a requirement for eviction under Section 13-A. 2. The court did not address the issue of whether the landlord was a specified landlord since the tenant had not raised it in his affidavit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's revision petition and upheld the order of the Rent Controller denying permission to defend the eviction petition. The court also directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the rented premises to the landlord within 15 days and to deposit the entire arrears due till that date within a week before the Rent Controller.
V.K.Bali, J.
1. Petitioner-tenant being aggrieved of the order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide which he has declined permission to defend the eviction petition filed against him by respondent Havaldar Puran dated October 11, 1990 has preferred the present revision in this Court under Section 18-A(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , as amended upto date.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition may first be enumerated. Respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the landlord) purchased house No. 2132, Section 15-C, Chandigarh alongwith one Rajiv Kataria, an Advocate and Smt. Tirath Kataria, mother of Shri Rajiv Kataria, vide registered sale deed dated November 16, 1989. The landlord retired from service on December 1, 1989 and filed petition for summary eviction of the tenant as a specified landlord under section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on February 24, 1990. Petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as the tenant) sought permission to defend the aforesaid petition for eviction vide his application supported by an affidavit dated March 23, 1990. The application for permission to defend the petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on October 11, 1990. The present revision was filed on November 9, 1990 but was dismissed in limine, although by a speaking order, on November 12, 1990 but The tenant being aggrieved of the order passed by this Court dated November 12, 1990 carried Special Leave Petition before the Honble Supreme Court of India and on February 15, 1991, the following order was passed :-
"Special leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides. Mr. G.S. Sanghi appearing for the respondent landlord fairly submits that his client waives all objections regarding limitation. Mr. Sanghi says that all that is required is consideration of the appellant-tenants application to contest on the strength of such facts as may have been disclosed by the appellant in his affidavit. Counsel agreed that if the High Court were to come to the conclusion that the appellant has disclosed sufficient facts so as to entitle him to defend the landlords application for eviction in terms of Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 the case would then have to be remanded to the Rent Controller for affording the parties a reasonable opportunity on the question of defence. Otherwise, the High Court will pass appropriate orders disposing of the matter.
Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ujagar Singh agrees that this matter may be remanded to the High Court for consideration afresh as suggested by Mr. Sanghi. The submissions at the Bar are recorded. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remand this case to the High Court for consideration of the question whether the affidavit filed by the appellant-tenant before the Rent Controller discloses such facts as would entitle him to defence in terms of the provisions of the Act. If the High Court were to come to an affirmative answer in favour of the tenant the case shall then be remitted to afford the tenant a reasonable opportunity for defence. Parties shall appear before the High Court on 25.2.1991 for appropriate directions.
The appeal is disposed of as above. No costs. The records to be sent back immediately."
After the case was so remanded by the Honble Supreme Court, the tenant filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 5044-C-II of 1991, in which he prayed that Puran Singh be called upon to produce agreement to sell dated Sept. 18, 1989 and registered power of attorney on the authority of whcih the sale-deed had been executed. He further prayed for summoning of Rajiv Kataria to produce irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated October 5, 1989 stated to have been registered on October 18, 1989 and executed by Shri Ram Saran Chopra in his favour. The landlord filed reply to this application hotly contesting the prayers made by the tenant. This miscellaneous application was ordered to be
