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

1990 Supreme(P&H) 627

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sodhi, J.
Lt Col Sh Baldev Singh Bhalla
Versus
Prem Sagar
of,
Civil Revision No. 3283 of 1989,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 6, 1990

The tenant must demonstrate prima facie plausibility in the defenses set up to contest a petition for ejectment.

Headnote:

Sec.13-A - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Tenant's Leave to Contest Petition

Fact of the Case:

The landlord filed a petition for ejectment against the tenant under Sec.13-A of the Act, claiming bona fide requirement of the premises for personal use. The tenant sought leave to contest the petition, disputing the landlord's status as a specified landlord and alleging ownership of another house by the landlord, as well as conversion of the premises to commercial use.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the tenant's defenses lacked plausibility and scrutiny, and the rent controller erred in granting leave to contest the petition. The leave to defend granted to the tenant was set aside, and the revision petition was accepted with costs.

Issues: Dispute over landlord's status as a specified landlord, ownership of another house, and conversion of premises to commercial use.

Ratio Decidendi: The tenant must show prima facie plausibility in the defenses set up, and in this case, the tenant's defenses lacked scrutiny and plausibility.

Final Decision: The leave to defend granted to the tenant was set aside, and the revision petition was accepted with costs.

Judgment

, J.

1. The challenge in revision here is to the leave granted to the tenant to contest the petition of the landlord under Sec.13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

2. On July 25, 1988, the petitioner Lt. Col. Baldev Singh Bhalla, filed a petition for ejectment against his tenant Prem Sagar under Sec.13 A of the Act, on the plea that he retired from service on August 31, 1987 and was a "specified landlord" in terms of the meaning of this expression under the Act and that he required the demised premises bona fide for his own use and occupation.

3. The tenant-Prem Sagar sought leave to contest the petition for ejectment filed against him on the ground that the petitioner was not a specific landlord. He sought to question, in this behalf, his date of retire neat by suggesting that he had in fact retired on August 31, 1985. The reference here being made to the statement made by the petitioners father Dr. Raghbir Singh Bhalla in ejectment proceedings against his tenant that his son-Lt Col. Baldev Singh Bhalla, was to retire from service on August 31, 1985. The plea thus being the present petition was barred by time.

4. The next point raised was that the petitioner owned another house, namely; L-160, Model Town, Ludhiana and he was thus not entitled to seek the ejectment of the tenant from the dismissed premises. The reference in this behalf being to the House Tax Assessment list pertaining to the years 1983-84 to 1986-87 where the petitioner is shown to be recorded as owner of this house 5 Finally, it was averred that the petitioner bad converted the demised premises to commercial use It being mentioned in this behalf that both the petitioner and his late father-Raghbir Singh Bhalla, after converting some portion of the building into shops, bad let them out to various firms 6. In seeking leave to contest, the tenant must show prima facei some plausibility in the defences set up by him In the present case, it wilt be seen that there is on record the certificate from the Military Secratarys Branch of Army Headquarters, New Delhi that the petitioner Lt. Col. Baldev Sing Bhalla had retired from the Army on superannuation with effect from August 33, 1987. The rent controller has chosen not be accept this certificate for the reason that it is signed by an officer lower in rank than the petitioner On the face of it, this is clearly no ground to cast any doubt upon the genuineness or validity of this certificate. As is well-known junior officers posted in the relevant branch are authorised to sign such certificates on behalf of Military Secretary. As doubt had been expressed on this account, to lend further assurance to this certificate, the petitioner has also placed on record, the certificate of Col. S. K. Kaushal of October 23, 1989 (annexure P/3) to the effect that Major R. L. Singh who had certified the date of retirement of the petitioner, was fully empowered to issue the retirement orders and the certificate as issued to Lt Col Baldev Singh Bhalla on March 5, 1988. Next there is the certificate anaexure P/4 of October 20, 1989 issued by Lt. General S. K. Pillai again to the effect that Lt. Col Baldev Singh Bhalla had retired from the Army on superannuation with effect from August 31, 1987. With such being the material on record, no occasion is provided to suggest even prima facie that the present petition was barred by time, 7. Turning next to the plea that the petitioner also owned another house in Punjab namely; L-160, Model Town, Ludhiana, here again. there is on record the decree in favour of his brother Harjit Singh of October 12, 1988, wherely the house L-160, Model Town has been held to be that of Harjit Singh. Further, even according to the will of the father of the petitioner, this house has been bequeathed to Harjit Singh In the face of this material, it cannot be suggested that the owner of house L-160, Model Town was the petitioner. It stands established,

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