Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Mohinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Om Dutt Joshi & Anr. – Respondents
CR-1326 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-09-2022
Rent Control - Non Resident Indians - Grant of Leave to Contest in Eviction Petition
Fact of the Case:
The tenants filed applications for grant of leave to contest in the eviction petition, which were dismissed by the Rent Controller. The landlords, who are Non Resident Indians, sought immediate possession of the tenanted premises under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller held that the petitioners failed to make out a case for grant of leave to contest. The landlords' bonafide necessity to settle in India was accepted, and the applications were dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tenants had a case for grant of leave to contest in the eviction petition filed by Non Resident Indian landlords.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the landlords' genuine requirement to settle in India was accepted, and there was no prohibition or bar in filing the petition through a duly executed power of attorney holder.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions and disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - Civil Revision No.1326, 1822, 1649 and 1696 of 2016, have been filed by the tenants while challenging the separate but similar, orders passed by the Rent Controller.
2. The applications filed by the respective tenants for grant of leave to contest in the eviction petition have been dismissed. The respondents (landlords) are Non Resident Indians. As per Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1949 Act'), the Non Resident Indians landowners are entitled to immediate possession of one tenanted premises during their life time. Under Section 18 of the 1949 Act, there is a provision to enable the tenant to seek the leave to contest, by making out a case that the petition filed by the landowners is liable to be dismissed.
3. In the present case, the respective applications, so filed, have been dismissed by the Rent Controller after discussing the material available before it. It has been held that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for grant of leave to contest.
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsels representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
5. The learned counsel representing the petitioners contends that the eviction petition itself was not maintainable as it was filed through the attorney of the landlords, namely, Sh. Harjit Singh.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents submits that during the pendency of the present revision petitions, the landowners themselves came forward.
7. The learned counsel representing the petitioners has failed to draw the attention of the Court to any prohibition or bar in filing the petition under Section 13B of the 1949 Act, through a duly executed power of attorney holder. In this case, the landlords have expressed their bonafide necessity to come back and settle in India. In such circumstances, the genuineness of their requirement has been accepted by the Rent Controller.
8. The learned counsel representing the petitioners has not pressed any other argument.
Hence, dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
The genuine requirement of Non Resident Indian landlords for immediate possession under Section 13B of the 1949 Act was accepted, and there was no prohibition in filing the petition through a power o....
The court emphasized the importance of the Rent Controller considering the assertions made in the tenants' affidavit when determining their entitlement to leave to contest an eviction petition.
The limitations and entitlements outlined in Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, regarding the recovery of immediate possession by a non-resident Indian owner, and the s....
Thorough analysis of the grounds disclosed in the tenant's affidavit is essential before granting leave to contest an eviction petition, particularly in cases involving Non-Resident Indian owners see....
The court emphasized that procedural violations, unless vitiating the trial, cannot be the basis to set aside a valid judgment delivered on merits.
The court's decision was influenced by the applicability of the 1995 Act and the grounds for eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Eviction petitions under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act require landlords to demonstrate bona fide necessity, with limited appellate review when concurrent findings exist.
Ejectment petitions under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act may contain ancillary claims, and landlords have discretion over their property needs, regardless of tenant opposition.
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
