An NRI landlord's eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Restriction Act is maintainable through a power of attorney holder who has personal knowledge of the facts, and the landlord's death after the passing of an eviction decree does not abrogate the cause of action.

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of this common order, aforementioned two revision petitions shall stand disposed as they involve common question of law and fact.

For convenience, the facts are being taken from CR-1997-2007.

2. Briefly stating, respondent No.1-landlord having claimed himself to be an NRI owner of the demised premises, sought eviction of petitioners-tenants from the premises situated opposite Grain Market Railway Road, Town Banga, Tehsil Nawanshahar, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, on the ground that the same was required for his own personal use and occupation.

3. Upon notice, the petitioners-tenants sought permission for leave to contest. The learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 08.05.2015, granted leave to contest in favour of the petitioners and, consequently, in terms thereof, afforded opportunity to file written statement. Based on the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed followed by the parties having led their respective evidence. Subsequently, the learned Rent Controller vide its decision dated 19.12.2016, allowed the eviction petition preferred at the instance of respondent No.1-landlord, holding him to be one of the co-owners of the demised premises being NRI and thus, entitled for making an application under Section 13-B of the Act. Further, the factum of bonafide need of Respondent No.1 qua the premises in dispute was also established.

4. Impugning the aforementioned decision, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case the claim of respondent No.1 was never established on record in terms of Section 13-B of the Act inasmuch as respondent No.1 himself did not step into the witness box. He points out that in order to establish his own bona fide requirement as an NRI, respondent No.1 was mandatorily required to appear as a witness in support of his claim made in the eviction petition. However, instead, one Mr.Rajat Moudgil, son of Davinder Moudgil, appeared as PW-1 in support of the eviction petition and thus, in the absence of testimony of respondent No.1, the prayer for seeking eviction of petitioners in terms of Section 13-B of the Act ought to have been dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further points out that as a matter of record, during the pendency of the present revision petition(s), respondent No.1-Landlord has unfortunately expired and consequently, no cause of action survives in the present revision petition(s) as the sole ground pleaded by respondent No.1 in petition under Section 13-B of the Act has been for his own personal need and not for requirement of any of his dependents or family members. He thus submits that, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ Gurdev Singh Vs. Surjit Kumar @ Jit ” reported as “1996(2) RCR (Rent) 122” the eviction petition(s) was liable to be dismissed. Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 thereof are extracted hereunder:-

"4. As noticed at the beginning, the first appellant filed after filing the Special Leave Petition. The application for substitution was allowed. On the basis of subsequent event, the widow of the deceased first appellant has stated that after the death of her husband she has "permanently come back to India and needs the house in question for her personal residence". In the normal circumstances in view of the settled position of law that subsequent events have to be taken note of, we would have allowed the ejectment application accepting the statement of the second appellant (widow of the first appellant). However, the second respondent has filed a