CR No. 348 of 2016 (O & M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

109

*****

=================

IN VIRTUAL COURT

=================

CR No. 348 of 2016 (O & M)

Date of decision : 27.10.2021

Harjit Singh

……Petitioner

Vs.

Harcharan Singh

……Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

Present :

Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate, for the petitioner

Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent

---

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2015,

passed by the Rent Controller, NRI Cases, Jalandhar, whereby the petition was

allowed and it was ordered that the respondent will hand over the vacant

possession of the demised premises to the petitioner peacefully, within a period

of two months from the date of the said order, failing which the petitioner will

be entitled to take vacant possession of the same with the assistance of the

Court.

The brief facts of the case are; that the respondent herein is a Non-

Resident Indian (NRI) and had filed the eviction petition before the Rent

Controller for eviction of the present petitioner/tenant from the property

bearing House No. 207, Urban Estate, Phase I, Jalandhar; under Section 13-B

ASHWANI KUMAR

2021.11.02 17:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No. 348 of 2016 (O & M)

-2-

of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act'),

claiming that he need the house for his own use after returning from abroad.

The property on rent in question included the first floor of the said

house which consisted of two bed rooms, dining room, drawing room, store,

one kitchen and two bathrooms. Initially, the rent was fixed at Rs.3600/-per

month.

The petitioner/tenant continued paying the rent to the

respondent/landlord. However, subsequently even the payment of rent was

stopped. It was further averred in the petition that the landlord has been

residing in Canada, however, he intended to settle down in India-his mother

land for spending rest of his life. Accordingly, the eviction petition was filed.

The said eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved

against the said judgment/order, the present petition has been preferred by the

petitioner/tenant.

Arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has

submitted that the Rent Controller has gone wrong in law in not taking note of

the fact that the respondent/landlord has not proved the passport as per

requirements of the law. It is only a marked document. Hence, his status as an

NRI is not proved on record. The counsel has relied upon the judgment

rendered in ' Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another;

2004 (1) PLR 405' in this regard to argue that mere marking of a document

does not make the document as proved. Still further, it is submitted by counsel

for the petitioner/tenant that the petition filed through power of attorney is not

maintainable. The power of attorney cannot depose as to the facts pleaded in

the rent petition. Hence, the Rent Controller could not have passed the order of

eviction. Counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered in 'Man Kaur v.

ASHWANI KUMAR

2021.11.02 17:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No. 348 of 2016 (O & M)

-3-

Kartar Singh Saugha; 2010 (4) Civil Court Cases 792'. As supplement to

this argument, counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the attempt

of the respondent/landlord to get the petitioner/tenant evicted is not bona-fide.

He is having other properties in India. Taking his argument further, counsel for

the petitioner has submitted that the respondent/landlord has not come to the

Court with clean hands. To support his contention the counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that the respondent/landlord has not disclosed in the

rent petition that he owned other ancestral properties in India; as well. Counsel

has relied upon the judgment rendered in 'Daljit Sharma v.