The genuine need of the landlord for eviction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J. - CM-23327-CII-2017

This is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing certified copy of Annexure A1 and placing on record typed copies of the same.

After going through the contents of the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

MAIN CASE

1. Present Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord challenging order dated 15.10.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby ejectment application No.10500099/2007 filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for ejectment of respondent/tenant from 'Shop No.1 situated in abadi village Kingra, Tehsil and district Jalandhar, Bagri Complex, Main Road, Mithapur, Jalandhar' (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised shop'), has been dismissed.

2. It is inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner:

a) that the petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian and had come to India to settle his son. The petitioner is owner of the demised shop. The building where the demised shop is situated is a non-residential-cum-commercial building. The demised shop was let out to the respondent/tenant vide Rent Note dated 10.3.2006 (Ex.R-2/Annexure A-1/T) at a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-. However, as the respondent failed to make payment of rent since March, 2007, and as the petitioner required the demised shop for settling his son who wanted to run his own business from the demised shop, the petitioner filed present ejectment petition against the respondent on grounds of arrears of rent, as also personal necessity;

b) that as per Sale Deed dated 27.02.1991 (Mark A), it is clear that petitioner was owner of the demised shop for more than five years prior to filing of the ejectment petition. Upon issuance of notice of motion, respondent/tenant appeared and filed written statement contesting ejectment petition on various grounds, to which the petitioner duly filed rejoinder.

c) that on the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed following issues on 06.01.2010:-

1. Whether petitioner is NRI and is owner of property for the last more than five years? OPP

2. Whether shop in dispute is required by petitioner for his use and occupation? OPP

3. Whether respondent is in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month since March, 2007. If so, its effect? OPP

4. Whether correct site plan has not been produced by the petitioner? OPR

5. Whether petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

6. Relief.

d) that vide the impugned order the learned Rent Controller has dismissed ejectment petition of the landlord/petitioner primarily on following grounds:-

i) that the petitioner has failed to prove his ownership of the demised shop for more than five years before filing the present petition and that is fatal blow to the case set up by the petitioner in the petition regarding ejectment of respondent from demised shop;

ii) that petitioner had failed to prove bona fide requirement of the premises in question as, son of the petitioner was already working with him in the shop at Germany; and

iii) that petitioner was owner of other shops in the vicinity.

e) that above said findings of the learned Rent Controller are contrary to the record and therefore, liable to be rejected. It is submitted that from the Sale Deed dated 27.02.1991 (Mark A), it is evident that the petitioner had been owner of the premises since 1991. Learned Rent Controller has totally misread the evidence on record to hold that property mentioned in the jamabandi (Mark B), sale deed dated 27.02.1991 (Mark A), and the one mentioned in the rent note, in the head note and in para 1 of the ejectment petition, are different and are not one and the same property. It is submitted that relationship of landlord-tenant between the petitioner and respondent has been candidly admitted by the respondent and therefore, there can be no dispute regarding ownership