Back
2011 (2) RCR(Civ) 804
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
Harwinder Pal Kaur and another - Petitioners
Vs.
Kuldeep Singh Gurm @ Kuldeep Singh and others - Respondents
CR No.4259 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided on: 04.3.011
Section 18-A - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 18-A of the Act - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which confers a right upon a Non Resident Indian of immediate possession of the demised premises owned by him for over a period of five years. The court emphasized the importance of service upon the tenant in petitions filed under Section 13A and 13-B of the Act, and the limited time granted to the tenant to show cause for 'leave to defend'. The court also highlighted the specific procedures for service of summons on the tenant as provided in Section 18-A (3) (a) and (b) of the Act, and the consequences of refusal of summons. The judgment emphasized the need for strict adherence to the statutory provisions for service upon the tenant to ensure fairness in eviction proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenants for a shop under Section 13-B of the Act, alleging bonafide necessity. The tenants filed an application for 'leave to defend' under Section 18-A of the Act, contesting the ownership of the landlord and the bonafide necessity projected by the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the service of summons upon the tenant was not validly effected, as the prescribed procedures for service as per Section 18-A (3) (a) and (b) of the Act were not followed by the Rent Controller. The court also noted that the issue of joint ownership of the demised premises was not decided by the Rent Controller. Consequently, the court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues included the validity of service of summons, ownership of the demised premises, and the bonafide necessity projected by the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the statutory provisions for service upon the tenant in eviction proceedings under Section 13A and 13-B of the Act. The court also highlighted the need for proper consideration of issues such as joint ownership of the demised premises and bonafide necessity projected by the landlord.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 31.5.2010, by which an application filed by the petitioner under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking 'leave to defend' the petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the Act, was dismissed.
2. In brief, the landlord/respondent filed an eviction petition against the tenants/petitioners under Section 13-B of the Act, in respect of a shop measuring 11'x 20' forming part of property No.560, opposite Gurudwara Shri Guru Hargobind Sahib, Raikot Road, Mullanpur Dakha, Ludhiana, alleging therein that the shop (demised premises) was devolved upon him and his brothers upon the death of their father Kartar Singh on 31.8.1994 on the basis of a registered Will dated 01.10.1980 and as such, he alongwith his brothers is the owner of the demised premises for the last more than 14 years. The landlord migrated to Canada in July, 1995 and is having a passport bearing No. WB742641 and is a Non-Resident Indian. The landlord had let out the demised premises to the tenants on 20.7.1995 at a monthly rent of `2000/-for running electronic business. The tenants were separately liable to pay house tax @ 15% per annum and the electricity charges. It was alleged that the landlord wanted to open a shop of cloth merchant along-with his wife Smt. Malkiat Kaur and two sons, namely Manjinder Singh and Mandeep Singh in which his younger brother Baljinder Singh was also to join. The adjoining shop of the demised premises is with one Malkiat Singh, who assured him to vacate it within a period of 5/6 months or as soon as he finds a suitable accommodation. Thus, a case of bonafide necessity was set up. According to the zimni orders available on record, the eviction petition was filed on 03.6.2009, in which the following order was passed.
Present: Counsel for the petitioner
Rent petition received by entrustment. It be registered. Notice of the petition be issued to the respondents for 18.7.2009.
On 18.7.2009, following order was passed:-
Present: Counsel for the petitioner.
Summons received back with the report of unserved. So, respondent be summoned through munadi for 07.8.2009.
On 7.8.2009, the following order was passed:
Present: Counsel for the petitioner.
On last date, summon received back with the report of refusal and munadi was issued against the respondents. But inadvertently, in the zimni orders, it was written as summon received back unserved. so, this order is rectified to the extent may be read as summons received back with refusal. Today both the respondents appeared through Sh. Parupkar Singh, Advocate, and filed power of attorney. Counsel for the respondent made a request that he wants to file an application. Case is fixed for 22.8.2009.
3. Admittedly, an application under Section 18-A of the Act seeking leave to defend' was filed on 21.8.2009 within a period of 15 days from the date of appearance.
4. In the application for 'leave to defend', it was alleged that ordinary notice for appearance before the Court was received on 7.8.2009 which was not accompanied with the copy of petition. It was further alleged that the demised premises is not owned by the landlord exclusively, therefore, she has no locus standi to file the present petition. Earlier, Mukhtiar Singh, Attorney Holder of the landlord had filed an application for ejectment, which was dismissed in default on 28.9.2006 and another application for ejectment was dismissed on 13.4.2007. Besides this, it was also alleged that there is no bonafide necessity which has been projected by the landlord in the petition.
5. The learned Rent Controller, vide his impugned order dated 31.5.2010 dismissed the application filed under Section 18-A of the Act, on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. Ownership of the landlord is also proved from the Will and Death Certificate of Karta
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
