An NRI landlord can seek eviction through a power of attorney under Section 13-B of the Rent Act, and the burden of proof lies on the tenant to establish the landlord's requirement is not genuine.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri , J. - This order of mine shall dispose of the above two petitions wherein challenge is to the order dated 25.04.2013 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Narinder Singh-Landlord filed rent applications against the petitioners for immediate possession by eviction from the shops on the ground that he is NRI who is settled in Malaysia. He is a holder of passport issued by Malaysian Government. He is owner of building No. B-VII622/2 having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 01.11.1957. The said building is a double story building consisting of three shops on the ground floor facing railway road and room and hall on the first floor along with stairs situated at Railway Road, Jalandhar. The respondent has decided to return to India for settling here and requires the entire building including the tenanted premises and wants to remodel the entire building and construct a modern well equipped utitlity, general merchandise store.

3. The petitioners filed application under Section 18-a(4) of the Rent Act seeking leave of the Court to contest the petition inter alia on the ground that the respondent is neither NRI nor he had gone for the purpose of employment. The basic ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act are not fulfilled. There is no relationship between landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent is well settled abroad and is still living there and has no intention to return to India.

4. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application filed by the respondent and ordered the petitioners to be evicted from the tenanted premises dismissing the objection raised by the petitioners that since the property had been acquired by JIT, Jalandhar, the respondent is not the owner of the property in question, as there was nothing on record to show that the property has been acquired in any acquisition proceedings. The respondent is still shown to be the owner of the premises i.e property No. BVII-12-622/2 in the T.S.-I Form, assessment register for the year 2010-11 and receipt of the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar dated 03.08.2011.

5. It has further been held that the description of the property as mentioned in the sale deed and existing at spot is the similar and site plan shows that property is situated at new railway road. Though, boundaries of the property has been shown different from the sale deed, but it is not to forget that the property in question was purchased in the year 1956 and during that period, many changes might have taken place surrounding the property. Moreover, in order to prove that property is different from the sale deed, applicant has not placed on record any site plan from which it can be revealed that there are two different properties.

6. The respondent has proved that he is NRI, as from the passport it is clear that the nationality of the respondent has been written as Malaysia The respondent was held to be owner of the disputed property for more than 05 years prior to the filing of the rent application.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners is seeking setting aside of the impugned order that since the alleged attorney through whom the ejectment petition was filed, is a partner of the respondent and in fact a property dealer and thus, the property is not required for the purpose as alleged in the petition.

8. Reference has been made to a judgment of this Court in a case of Hardev Singh vs. Surjit Kaur , (2008) 3 RCR(Civil) 631 whereby a landlady who lived in Canada filed an eviction petition through her attorney on the ground that she wanted to shift and settle in India. But since landlady did not appear as witness, her attorney appeared on her behalf, the matter was remitted back to Rent Controller to give opportunity to landlady to depose about her necessity. The Attorney can appear as witness on behalf of the principal and depose about the facts which are in his personal knowledge or about those acts which he had per