IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.109

CR-141-2021 (O&M)

Date of decision : 29.1.2021

Devinder Kumar

..... Petitioner

VERSUS

Nachhatar Singh

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:

Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate and

Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*****

SUDHIR MITTAL, J.

The petitioner is the tenant. He is aggrieved because, order

dated 18.2.2020 ordering his eviction from the demised premises has been

passed in a petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the East

Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Rent Act’).

The demised premises is a shop in the front portion of property

bearing No.B-XIX-1342 situated in Haibowal Khurd, Tehsil & District

Ludhiana. The petitioner has been the tenant in the said shop since

18.7.1990 when a rent note was executed between him and the original

owner, namely, Surjit Singh. The landlord-respondent purchased property

bearing No.B-XIX-1342 from Surjit Singh vide registered sale deed dated

13.6.1995. It appears that Surjit Singh had also sought eviction of the

petitioner through a petition filed under Section 13-A of the Rent Act before

he sold the property, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated

21.7.1995.

RAMANDEEP SINGH

2021.02.03 13:40

CR-141-2021 (O&M)

2

In response to the eviction petition, the tenant-petitioner sought

leave to defend. The same was declined by the Rent Controller vide order

dated 22.8.2012 and the order was upheld by the High Court. A special

leave petition was preferred by the tenant which was converted into

CA-10528-2014. The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court of India

vide order dated 25.11.2014 on the ground that the tenant had raised triable

issues regarding the bona fides of the landlord-respondent and thus, leave to

defend should have been granted. Consequently, the tenant-petitioner filed

his written statement, wherein apart from other facts, it was stated that there

had been previous litigation between the parties which showed that the need

was not bona fide. The landlord-respondent had filed a petition for eviction

on the ground of non-payment of rent on 30.10.1996 and the same was

dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2004. During the pendency thereof, a

petition for eviction on the ground of material alteration was filed on

1.8.2001, which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.1.2006. A third

petition for eviction on the ground of subletting was filed on 8.5.2003 and

the same has also been dismissed. This establishes the mala fides of the

landlord-respondent. The mala fides are further evident from the fact that an

attempt was made by the landlord-respondent to illegally interfere in the

possession of the tenant-petitioner which led to the registration of FIR No.18

dated 4.3.1996 registered at Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under

Sections 456 and 427 IPC. This was soon after the landlord-respondent had

purchased the premises in dispute and the fact conclusively shows the

intention of the landlord to evict the tenant by hook and crook. The landlord

retired from Government service in the year 2006 and he could have sought

CR-141-2021 (O&M)

3

eviction of the tenant under Section 13-A of the Rent Act, in case, his need

was bona fide, however, no such attempt was made by him.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has firstly argued that

the eviction petition should have been dismissed on the ground of defective

pleadings as it has nowhere been stated in the eviction petition that the

landlord-respondent was an NRI, the date he went abroad, the purpose

thereof and when he intended to return. In this context, reference has been

made to the definition of “Non-Resident Indian” given in