Dismissed

M/S Stic Travels & Anr. v. Viranmool Singh Toor & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jul 2013CR/4135/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition before the High Court of Chandigarh regarding eviction under Section 13(B) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the Court dismissed the tenants' challenge to an order denying leave to defend, upholding the Rent Controller's decision that the landlords' need was bona fide.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed. The order dated 16.05.2013 rejecting the prayer for leave to defend was upheld.

M/S Stic Travels & Anr. Vs Viranmool Singh Toor… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

�� 

¶2

�� !��"�#$%� Date of decision: 12^th July, 2013

¶3

M/s Stic Travels and another

¶4

� Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Dr. Viranmool Singh Toor and others

¶7

� Respondents

¶8

��$&��'�(��$��)���)���$��

¶9

Present: Mr. Siddharth Sanwaria, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

���)���$��+��

¶11

The respondents(landlords filed a petition under Section 13(B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) seeking ejectment of the petitioners from the demised premises being Non Resident Indians, who required the demised premises for their own personal use and occupation.

¶12

It has been specifically stated in the eviction petition that the respondents are Indians by birth and fall within the definition of Non Resident Indian as contained under Section 2(dd) of the Act and have decided to come back to India to reside and settle in Chandigarh and start a Joint Venture in the demised premises. It has also been submitted by them specifically that they are the owners of the building in question for more then five years and do not occupy any other commercial premises in the urban area of Chandigarh, nor

¶13

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.07.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶14

¶15

��

¶16

they have vacated any such premises after commencement of the Act.

¶17

Upon notice, the petitioners filed an application for leave to defend under Section 18(A(4) of the Act submitting that the eviction petition was not maintainable as the respondents were not the owners of the premises in question; further submitting that the respondents were well settled in the foreign country and they have not placed on record any document to show entering into a Joint Venture for running of hospital in the demised premises as alleged. The respondents were in occupation of ample space for the purposes of running a hospital as they were in possession of basement and one complete portion of the SCO No.44. Moreover, hospital cannot be allowed to run from the demised premises (basement) because it was not permissible.

¶18

The application for leave to defend has been contested by the respondents(landlords submitting that they will get the necessary permission from the concerned departments after getting the demised premises vacated from the tenants. The submissions made in the eviction petition were reiterated and prayer was made to reject the prayer.

¶19

Vide impugned order dated 16.05.2013, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has rejected the prayer of the petitioners and in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in ,��-./�� .��*.0/' 2001(2) RCR (Rent) 604 has ordered eviction of the

¶20

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.07.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶21

¶22

��

¶23

petitioners being consequential. The relevant part of the impugned order be noticed, which reads thus:

¶24

�� !"# !$#!!%��&'#(%��)�� +�� &$#,�� (��-�� -��.��/��*��-�� -��0��1��2�� 1��3��"44'5&6�+�+�5+��6�!""�� %�� &$#,��(��

¶25

7�� (�� %�� # �� )�� +�� &�3�"�� $��8�� 1��)��%��

¶26

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.07.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶27

¶28

��

¶29

�� +��9��/�� 8��+��+��(��0��%�� +�%�� -�� %��%��%�� +��+��(�� -��.��,��,�� 0��(�+�"447��:�� 0��-�� ;��)��%��%�� )��%��

¶30

'�� )�� %�� -��.��/��-��-�� 0��1��5��6��-��.��/�� -��-�� %� +�� ;��%�� ��-����<�� "4475&6�+�+�5+��6�!$7�-��.��/��-�� -�� %��%� +�� &$#,��(�� ;��)��

¶31

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.07.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶32

��

¶33

¶34

��)��%�� -��.��-�� %�� ,�� !"#!$#!!%�� &'#(%�� )��%�� ;�� ;��

¶35

=�� )�� *��%��%�� ;��;�� )��%�� +�� %�� (��%��

¶36

:�� +��%�� %�� +�� ;�� ;�� ;��)�� ;��

¶37

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.07.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

��

)��%��%� �� %�� >��

At this stage, the grounds on which the impugned order has been challenged, as raised in this revision petition, be also noticed, which reads as under:

¶42

��6� )��+��8)�� ;�� ;�� ;�� 3�� �� ��

¶43

��6� )��+��8)�� %�� #�� +��8)�� 3� ��

¶44

��6� )��+��8)�� *�� 3�� ?��+��

¶45

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.07.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶46

��

¶47

¶48

��%�2��#��%�� +�� 3�� %��

¶49

��6� )��+��8)�� 3��*�� 3�� *��>��

¶50

However, it may further be noticed that the grounds of revision in favour of the petitioners(tenants are not fulfilled as provided under Section 13(B of the Act except that the personal need of the landlord is not bonafide.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that establishment of a hospital in the demised premises is actually in violation of the laws and bye(laws applicable to the city of Chandigarh and in the absence of any document placed on record to show that respondents entered into a Joint Venture to run a hospital in the demised premises, their need cannot be said to be bonafide and therefore, it was imperative upon the Rent Controller to grant an opportunity to the petitioners(tenants to establish the same by leading evidence.

¶52

The argument raised on behalf of the petitioners before this Court is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. It is immaterial if the respondents(landlords have not filed the project report, financial potential, site plan etc. for establishment of the hospital in question, because as per the law it is not required by the respondents(

¶53

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.07.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶54

¶55

��

¶56

landlords and it is none of the tenant’s business to show whether such a hospital could be run from the demised premises or not, or that the landlord has to seek permission for the change of user. In fact, once it is established that the respondents are NRI and have fulfilled all other conditions as envisaged under Section 13(B of the Act, a presumption has to be drawn under Section 18(A(4) of the Act in favour of the respondents(landlords that their need is bonafide. In the application for leave to defend, the petitioners(tenants have failed to make out a case to raise a triable issue on the basis of which they

¶57

could be granted leave to defend and in view thereof, this Court finds no merit in this petition.

¶58

Dismissed.

¶59

"���)���$��%� ��

¶60

�0�1�� +� !��

¶61

��

¶62

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.07.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

M/S Stic Travels & Anr. v. Viranmool Singh Toor & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Stic Travels & Anr. v. Viranmool Singh Toor & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal Singh & Ors. Vs Sunil Arora & Anrs.

Anita Thakur Vs Sita Ram

Surekha Devi Vs Election Tribunal Gurdaspur and Ors.

Amar Singh Vs Jainendera Gurukul

Kailash Chand @ Kailash Chander and Ors. Vs Rai Bahadur Sewak Ram Trust Society etc.

Chander Sheikher Khatter Vs Abishek Kumar and Ors.