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

2015 Supreme(P&H) 458

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.
Bachan Kaur and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Kabal Singh and Ors. - Respondent
C.R. No. 4025 of 2006
Decided On : 28-01-2015

For the Appellant :B.R. Mahajan, Senior Advocate, Prateek Mahajan and Akhilesh Vyas, Advocates
For the Respondents:Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate and Nitish Garg, Advocate

The main legal point established is that landlords must personally depose regarding their bona fide requirement for eviction, and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the eviction application.

Headnote:

Revision Petition - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 15(5) - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The landlords filed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of their eviction application under Section 13-B of the Act. The Rent Controller dismissed the application citing lack of proof of ownership, non-resident Indian status, and bona fide requirement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the landlords had failed to prove their ownership, non-resident Indian status, and bona fide requirement for eviction. The court also noted that the petitioners did not appear in the witness box to depose regarding their requirement of the premises.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the power of attorney, the non-resident Indian status of the landlords, the bona fide requirement for eviction, and the ownership of the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlords failed to prove their ownership, non-resident Indian status, and bona fide requirement for eviction. It emphasized the necessity for the landlords to personally depose regarding their requirement of the premises.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition as the landlords failed to prove their ownership, non-resident Indian status, and bona fide requirement for eviction.

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

1. Challenge in the present revision petition filed by the landlords/owners under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') is to the order dated 10.06.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Nawanshahar which has dismissed the eviction application under Section 13-B of the Act after leave to contest had been granted. The reasoning given by the Rent Controller in support of its decision is that the original sale deeds have not been produced on record by the petitioners pertaining to the property in question and only photocopies had been placed on record. The Will dated 11.05.1989 Ex. A-1 of Kabal Singh, the original owner was in favour of Gurmail Singh and Rajinder Singh, petitioners No. 2 and 3. The petitioner No. 1 did not have any right in the immovable property and the property in khasra numbers in the sale deed has not been mentioned in the petition and neither any mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the said petitioners. Thus, the ownership of the said petitioners was not proved with regard to the property in dispute. The third issue which weighed with the Rent Controller was that only petitioner No. 1 had produced her own passport on record and identity card to show that she was a Non-resident Indian and since petitioners No. 2 and 3 had not produced any documents that they were Nonresident Indians and residing in USA, they had failed to prove the said fact. The said persons had also not been able to show that they had returned to India and since the petition had been filed by their attorney, the need of the landlord was not bona fide.

2. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Sr. counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it was admitted fact that the respondents were the tenants and the relationship of landlord-tenant was not denied. The rent note Ex. A-2 dated 21.04.1980 showed that the property had been let out by the petitioners to respondents. The ownership was admitted and it was settled that the tenants were estopped from denying the title of the landlords and it was not their case that any other person was the owner. The power of attorney in favour of petitioners No. 2 and 3 was general and no specific powers as such had to be given. The bona fide element was there since the tenants had remained in occupation since the last more than 20 years and the ejectment application was filed on 07.09.2001. Similarly, the factum of the petitioners being Nonresident Indians was admitted and that they were residing abroad which would be clear from the evidence of the parties and in such circumstances, the Rent Controller was not justified in dismissing the eviction petition.

3. Senior counsel for the respondents-tenants Mr. Vikas Bahl, vehemently submitted that neither petitioner No. 1 had signed the petition and only the power of attorney Tarsem Singh had filed the petition. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had never appeared in the witness box and neither their passports had been produced. The bona fide element was, thus, missing and the litigation was being pursued by the power of attorney who was the interested person in the property. There were 5-6 rooms lying vacant on the first floor of the property in question which could have been utilized but the petitioners were not to come back. It is accordingly submitted that once there is a special provision of ejectment, then mere admission would not be sufficient to grant the relief of ejectment. The khasra numbers had not been mentioned of the property concerned in the petition and how they were owners was also not mentioned in the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. Accordingly, in such circumstances, the Rent Controller's order was justified.

4. A perusal of the record would go on to show that the petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Act for ejectment of the respondents from building/shop as shown red in the site plan situated on the Old Court Road, Nawanshahar. The boundaries were given by depicting that the















































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top