Revision against Rent Controller order declining tenant's leave to defend under Section 13-B of EPURR Act. Court dismissed petition holding landlord's bona fide need acceptable and procedural non-compute in summons not prejudicial appearance. No merit found.
Revision petition dismissed without order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR-19-2012 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
::::::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-19-2012 (O&M) Date of decision:04.01.2012
Ameet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Harminder Kaur ...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, Mohali dated 11.11.2011 by which an application filed by the tenant for seeking leave to defend and file written statement in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”], has been declined.
In brief, the respondent filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act in which it is alleged that she had let out the demised premises to the petitioner in the month of April, 2009 on monthly rent of `2,500/- with a condition of increase by 10% every year. It is further alleged that she has no sufficient accommodation in India and whenever she has to visit India, she has to stay in House No.55, Sector-8, Chandigarh.
In the application for leave to defend, it was alleged that the sons and daughters of the landlord are settled either in UK or in USA. She has got one bedroom under her lock and key in the demised premises and the tenant is occupying only one room, kitchen and wash room. It is also alleged that there is no actual need, rather it is only a ploy to get the demised premises vacated. The learned Rent Controller discussed each
[ 2 ]
CR-19-2012 (O&M)
::::::::::
and every issue raised by the petitioner separately in which he has observed that the petitioner is admittedly NRI and is owner of the demised premises from the last more than 5 years. She does not have any other accommodation in the urban area of Mohali where the demised premises is situated. Her need is ultimately found to be bona fide and accordingly the application for leave to defend was declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent used to reside alone and has a room in the demised premises under her lock and key, therefore, she does not require any more accommodation. He further submits that the learned Rent Controller did not issue proper summons in terms of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act and that the landlord is already having one SCO in Mohali.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record.
There is no dispute that the petitioner is an NRI and is owner of the demised premises from more than 5 years. Even if the summons were not sent on the prescribed proforma but since the petitioner had put in appearance within time and filed the application for leave to defend within the limitation prescribed, therefore, no prejudice is caused to him. The landlord is requiring the demised premises for her residence for which shop/office (SCO), which is allegedly owned by the landlord in the urban area of Mohali, is of no use.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
January 04, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition challenging the Rent Controller's order declining leave to defend is sustainable.
Whether the alleged procedural defect of summons not being in the prescribed proforma caused any prejudice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ameet Singh
Harminder Kaur
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
