Allowed

Satwant Singh v. Ram Kumar Sharma

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2023CR/452/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a revision petition under Section 151 CPC for exemption from filing certified copies. The core dispute concerns an ejectment petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, filed by an NRI landlord. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the dismissal of the ejectment petition by the Rent Controller. The Court held that the Landlord did own the property, establ

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 15.10.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, was set aside.

Satwant Singh Vs Ram Kumar Sharma — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 1 of 18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

110 CR-452-2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.04.2023

Satwant Singh

...Pe00oner(s)

Vs.

Ram Kumar Sharma

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Argued By:Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶11

None for the respondent. ***

¶12

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶13

CM-23327-CII-2017

¶14

This is an applica�on under Sec�on 151 CPC seeking

¶15

exemp�on from filing cer�fied copy of Annexure A1 and placing on record typed copies of the same.

¶16

A)er going through the contents of the applica�on,

¶17

the same is allowed subject to all just excep�ons.

¶18

MAIN CASE

¶19

Present Revision Pe��on has been filed by the landlord challenging order dated 15.10.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby ejectment applica�on No.10500099/2007 filed by the pe��oner/landlord under Sec�on 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric�on Act, 1949 (hereina)er referred to as “the Act”) for ejectment of respondent/tenant from “Shop No.1 situated in abadi village Kingra, Tehsil

¶20

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 2 of 18

¶22

and district Jalandhar, Bagri Complex, Main Road, Mithapur, Jalandhar” (hereina)er referred to as “the demised shop”), has been dismissed.

¶23

It is inter alia, submi=ed by learned counsel for the

¶24

pe��oner:

¶25

a) that the pe��oner is a Non-Resident Indian and had come to India to se=le his son. The pe��oner is owner of the demised shop. The building where the demised shop is situated is a non-residen�alcum-commercial building. The demised shop was let out to the respondent/tenant vide Rent Note dated 10.3.2006 (Ex.R-2/Annexure A-1/T) at a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-. However, as the respondent failed to make payment of rent since March, 2007, and as the pe��oner required the demised shop for se=ling his son who wanted to run his own business from the demised shop, the pe��oner filed present ejectment pe��on against the respondent on grounds of arrears of rent, as also personal necessity;

¶26

b) that as per Sale Deed dated 27.02.1991 (Mark A), it is clear that pe��oner was owner of the demised shop for more than five years prior to filing of the ejectment pe��on. Upon issuance of no�ce of mo�on, respondent/tenant appeared and filed wri=en statement contes�ng ejectment pe��on on various grounds, to which the pe��oner duly filed rejoinder.

¶27

c) that on the basis of pleadings of the par�es, learned Rent Controller framed following issues on 06.01.2010:-

¶28

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 3 of 18

¶30

Whether pe��oner is NRI and is owner of property for the last more than five years? OPP

¶31

Whether shop in dispute is required by pe��oner for his use and occupa�on? OPP

¶32

Whether respondent is in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month since March, 2007. If so, its effect? OPP

¶33

Whether correct site plan has not been produced by the pe��oner? OPR

¶34

Whether pe��oner has no locus standi to file the present pe��on? OPR

¶35

Relief.

¶36

d) that vide the impugned order the learned Rent Controller has dismissed ejectment pe��on of the landlord/pe��oner primarily on following grounds:-

¶37

i) that the pe��oner has failed to prove his ownership of the demised shop for more than five years before filing the present pe��on and that is fatal blow to the case set up by the pe��oner in the pe��on regarding ejectment of respondent from demised shop;

¶38

ii) that pe��oner had failed to prove bona fide requirement of the premises in ques�on as, son of the pe��oner was already working with him in the shop at Germany; and

¶39

iii) that pe��oner was owner of other shops in the

¶40

vicinity.

¶41

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 4 of 18

¶43

e) that above said findings of the learned Rent Controller

¶44

are contrary to the record and therefore, liable to be rejected. It is submi=ed that from the Sale Deed dated 27.02.1991 (Mark A), it is evident that the pe��oner had been owner of the premises since 1991. Learned Rent Controller has totally misread the evidence on record to hold that property men�oned in the jamabandi (Mark B), sale deed dated 27.02.1991 (Mark A), and the one men�oned in the rent note, in the head note and in para 1 of the ejectment pe��on, are different and are not one and the same property. It is submi=ed that rela�onship of landlord-tenant between the pe��oner and respondent has been candidly admi=ed by the respondent and therefore, there can be no dispute regarding ownership of pe��oner over the demised shop;

¶45

f) that as regards bona fide requirement of the pe��oner, it is submi=ed that the need of the pe��oner is very much genuine as he wants to se=le his son(s) in India who is currently working with him in Germany. It is submi=ed that the learned Rent Controller has rejected his claim in this respect on the purely spurious reasoning that the pe��oner had failed to place on record any applica�on made by the pe��oner to the Authori�es in Germany regarding se=ling his son in India;

¶46

g) that the above said reasoning of the learned Rent Controller is erroneous as under Sec�on 13-B of the Act, there is no such requirement which mandates the pe��oner to produce such record as sought by the learned Rent Controller. In support, learned counsel relies upon judgment of this Court in CR-348 of 2016 �tled as “Harjit Singh Vs.

¶47

Harcharan Singh” Law Finder Doc ID # 1916127;

¶48

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 5 of 18

¶50

h) that as regards finding of learned Tribunal that pe��oner is owner of other shops in the vicinity and is therefore, not en�tled to ejectment as sought for, it is submi=ed that as evident from site plan (Exhibit R1), all the said other shops are situated in one and the same building. It is submi=ed that as per three-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 (9) SC 452 Swami Nath Vs. Nirmal Singh it has been held that geJng one unit vacated in a building would not amount to exhaus�ng right granted under Sec�on 13-B of the Act, and that such an interpreta�on “ to the proviso to Sec�on 13-B(1) of the 1949 Act would lead to an absurd situa�on which was not contemplated by the legislature while introducing the provisions of Sec�on 13-B by way of amendment in 2001. ”

¶51

i) that accordingly, learned Rent Controller was in error

¶52

on all the three counts in rejec�ng the ejectment pe��on filed by the pe��oner/landlord.

¶53

No other argument is raised on behalf of the

¶54

pe��oner.

¶55

Upon perusal of the record of the case order sheets show that on last two dates i.e. 19.02.2020 and 24.01.2023, ma=er was adjourned at request of learned counsel/proxy counsel appearing for the respondent. On 24.01.2023, it was made clear to the proxy counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent, that as this is a Revision Pe��on of the year 2013, no further adjournment shall be granted. However, even today, even in the second round, there is no

¶56

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶57

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 6 of 18

¶58

representa�on on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, respondent is being proceeded against ex-parte.

¶59

I have heard learned counsel for the pe��oner and with his able assistance perused the file as also lower Court record in detail.

¶60

In the present case, it is not disputed that pe��oner is an NRI as defined under Sec�on 2(dd) of the Act and was therefore, competent to file ejectment pe��on under Sec�on 13-B of the Act. Requirements under Sec�on 13-B are as follows:-

¶61

“13-B. Right to recover immediate possession of residen�al building or scheduled building and/or non-residen�al building to

¶62

accrue to Non-resident Indian. (1) Where an owner is a NonResident Indian and returns to India and the residen�al building or scheduled building and/or non-residen�al building, as the case may be, let out by him or her, is required for his or her use, or for the use of any one ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her, he or she, may apply to the Controller for immediate possession of such building or buildings, as the case may be: Provided that a right to apply in respect of such a building under this sec�on, shall be available only a0er a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner of such a building and shall be available only once during the life �me of such an owner.

¶63

(2) Where the owner referred to in sub-sec�on (1), has let out more than one residen�al building or scheduled building and/or non-residen�al building, it shall be open to him or her to make an applica�on under that sub-sec�on in respect of only one residen�al building or one scheduled building and/or one nonresiden�al building, each chosen by him or her.

¶64

(3) Where an owner recovers possession of a building under this sec�on, he or she shall not transfer it through sale or any other means or let it out before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building, failing which,

¶65

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶66

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 7 of 18

¶67

the evicted tenant may apply to the Controller for an order direc�ng that he shall be restored the possession of the said building and the Controller shall make an order accordingly.”

¶68

The above provision confers right to recover immediate possession to NRI landlords under special mechanism of Sec�on 13-B and Sec�on 18-A of the Act. However, in the present case, the landlord has been languishing which makes a mockery of legisla�ve right granted to him under Sec�on 13-B of the Act. It is accordingly, in these extenua�ng circumstances that respondent is being proceeded against ex-parte in the present case as the record/order sheets reveal that a somewhat casual and cavalier approach has been adopted on part of the respondent in pursuing this present pe��on.

¶69

A perusal of impugned order shows that learned Rent

¶70

Controller has dismissed the pe��oner’s ejectment pe��on on the ground that:

¶71

8(A) Ownership of the pe��oner over the demised shop for the last more than five years before filing of the present pe��on, is not proven as “ pe��oner has miserably failed to connect the property men�oned in the head note of the pe��on with the sale deed as well as jamabandi Mark-A and Mark-B respec�vely” . Finding of the learned Rent Controller in this respect is contained in Para 16 of the impugned order and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶72

“16. In order to prove his ownership over property in ques�on, pe��oner has placed on file copy of jamabandi Mark-B. He has also placed on file photocopy of sale deed dated 27.02.1991 MarkA. Perusal of both these documents shows that these documents i.e. sale deed Mark A and jamabandi Mark-B pertains to property

¶73

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶74

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 8 of 18

¶75

situated at Vill. Khingra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, bearing Khasra No.5122/3839 (11-3) whereas, perusal of head note of the pe��on shows that premises in ques�on are situated at Bagri Complex, Main Road, Mithapur, Jalandhar. Similar is the posi�on in para No.1 of the pe��on, where it has been pleaded that property in ques�on is situated in the abadi of Mithapur, Jalandhar. Perusal of documentary evidence led by pe��oner shows that no document has been placed on fle by the pe��oneri from which it could be presumed that property in ques�on, as fully detailed in the head note of the pe��on, is owned by pe��oner, which is situated within the abadi of Mithapur, Jalandhar. Otherwise also, pe��oner has miserably failed to connect the property men�oned in the head note of the pe��on with the sale deed as well as jamabandi Mark-A and Mark-B respec�vely. So, one of the most essen�al ingredient of Sec�on 13-B of the Act goes un-proved on the file regarding ownership of premises in ques�on for the last more than 5 years before the filing of present pe��on and that is fatal blow to the case set up by the pe��oner in the pe��on regarding ejectment of respondent from demised shop.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶76

8(A)(i) In my view, above said findings of learned Rent Controller are wholly misconceived and based on a piecemeal misreading of evidence on record; inasmuch in this regard the learned Rent Controller has totally ignored the wri�ng in the Rent Note dated 10.3.2006 Ex.R-2/Annexure A-1, and has thus, arrived at the above incorrect conclusion.

¶77

In the sale deed dated 27.02.1991 (Mark-A) as also in the Jamabandi (Mark B), the property in ques�on is described as “ Village Kingra, Tehsil Jalandhar bearing khasra No.5122/3839 (11-3)” ;

¶78

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶79

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 9 of 18

¶80

In Rent Note (Ex.R-2) demised shop has been described therein as “ Shop No.1 situated in abadi Village Kingra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, Bagri Complex, Main Road, Mithapur, Jalandhar ”;

¶81

The Head note of the pe��on shows that demised shop has been described therein as “ Shop No.1 situated in Bagri Complex at Main Road, Mithapur, Jalandhar ”.

¶82

Thus, a harmonious reading of all of the above three recita�ons, shows that the common connec�ng address contained in the 3 documents in respect of the demised shop is ‘Village Kingra, Bagri Complex, Main Mithapur Road, Tehsil & District Jalandhar’. In arriving at the impugned conclusion that “ pe��oner has miserably failed to connect the property men�oned in the head note of the pe��on with the sale deed as well as jamabandi Mark-A and Mark-B respec�vely” , the learned Rent Controller has ignored the inter-linking wri�ng contained in the Rent Note dated 10.03.2006 (Ex.R-2/Annexure A-1) wherein demised premises is shown situate at both Village Kingra and Bagri Complex. Thus, abovesaid conclusion of the learned Rent Controller is factually incorrect, being based on a piecemeal reading of the evidence on record.

¶83

8(A)(ii) It therefore follows, that the conclusion of the learned Rent Controller that the pe��oner did not own the demised shop for five years prior to filing of present pe��on is also contrary to the record as, admi=edly, registered Sale Deed dated 28.02.1991; document No.10638 (Mark A), pertaining to the land where the demised premises is situate, is of the year 1991. Therefore, the pe��oner was clearly owner of the demised premises since 1991.

¶84

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶85

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 10 of 18

¶86

8(A)(iii)

¶87

8(A)(iii) Furthermore, in this regard vital piece of evidence is contained in the evidence led by the pe��oner, in par�cular the cross-examina�on of the pe��oner as PW2 available at page 73 of the LCR which shows that it is the categoric asser�on of the pe��oner therein that “ The property in dispute was constructed in the year 1991/92. There are 23 shops. I have sold the two shops out of the total shops. …”. From the above evidence, in fact, as put to the pe��oner by the respondent himself, the pe��oner had specifically explained that he had constructed the property in dispute in the year 1991-92. Thus, to my mind the only ra�onal conclusion that follows is that the on the land situated in village Kingra bought by the pe��oner vide Sale Deed dated 27.02.1991, the pe��oner had constructed the 23 shops/developed Bagri Complex in 1991 itself, of which Shop No.1 was let out to the respondent in 2006. In my view, when the evidence is considered together in a coherent manner, the conclusions of the learned Rent Controller cannot be sustained. In fact, it has not been disputed by the respondent-tenant himself that the sale deed Mark A does not pertain to the demised premises.

¶88

It is also important to note that perusal of the evidence

¶89

shows that not even a sugges�on was put to the pe��oner that the registered Sale Deed dated 28.02.1991; Document No.10638 (Mark A), does not pertain to the demised premises. Thus, pe��oner was granted no opportunity to explain/refute the abovesaid conclusion drawn by the Rent Controller.

¶90

8(A)(iv) Even otherwise, in this regard learned Rent Controller has erred in ignoring the fact that in the Rent Note dated

¶91

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶92

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 11 of 18

¶93

10.03.2006/Ex. R-2/Annexure A-1/T, the respondent-tenant has admi=ed the ownership of the pe��oner in respect of the demised premises. Even the factum of tenancy in respect of the demised premises has not been denied by the respondent-tenant. Learned Rent Controller has noted in Para 17 of the impugned order that rela�onship of landlord-tenant is admi=ed by respondent. Thus, when the documentary evidence, including the Sale Deed Mark A and Rent Note Ex.R-2, are read together, the unassailable conclusion that follows is that the pe��oner was owner of the demised premises since 1991 i.e. for more than 5 years prior to filing of the Rent Pe��on.

¶94

8(A)(v) In this regard, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2014 (16) SCC 472 Kamaljit Singh Vs. Sarabjit Singh is relevant, wherein it has been held that where jural rela�onship of tenant and landlord admi=edly existed between the par�es, and respondent-tenant did not surrender possession of demised premises in his occupa�on, in such cases, tenant could not ques�on �tle of the landlord to that property, and Courts below had erred in holding that landlord was obliged to prove his �tle to the property. In the present case also, it is not the respondent’s case that pe��oner was not owner of demised shop.

¶95

8(B) The second ground on which the Learned Rent Controller has rejected the pe��oner’s ejectment applica�on is that the pe��oner has not been able to prove his bona fide requirement of demised shop. Findings in this regard are recorded in para 17 of the impugned order:-

¶96

“17……..He further admiCed that he is having two sons and same are of the age of 18 years and 15 years. His elder son namely

¶97

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶98

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 12 of 18

¶99

Manjinder Singh studied upto 10^th class and has now le0 the study. He further admiCed that his son Manjinder Singh is also siDng and working in the shop alongwith him and he is doing cloth business in Germany. He further admiCed that he has not moved any applica�on before Government of Germany regarding the fact that he wants to seCle his son in India in order to start the business of cloth in demised premises. All these admissions made by P.W.2 Satwant Singh goes a long way in order to disprove the case of pe��oner and in order to support the conten�on of respondent that premises in ques�on are neither bonafide required by pe��oner for his own use and occupa�on nor for the use of his son, because as per above men�oned admissions of P.W.2, his son is already working with him in the shop at Germany.”

¶100

In my view, the fact that the son of the pe��oner is

¶101

presently working with him in Germany, does not preclude the pe��oner from wan�ng to se=le his sons in India in the long-term, and cannot be made a ground to disbelieve the bona fide requirement of the pe��oner. Moreover, even the reasoning of the learned Rent Controller that pe��oner “ has not moved any applica�on before Government of Germany regarding the fact that he wants to seCle his son in India in order to start the business of cloth in demised premises” is misplaced as, under the law there is no such requirement for such record to be produced. In my view, above said reasoning of learned Rent Controller is prima facie erroneous in view of the fact that there is no requirement under Sec�on 13-B of the Act for the pe��oner to move an applica�on before the Government of Germany to seek permission to se=le his son in India. Pe��oner has pleaded his bona fide requirement which is duly supported by an affidavit and therefore, pe��oner was not required to bring or produce any record from Germany in this respect. In this regard, following

¶102

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶103

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 13 of 18

¶104

observa�ons made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2005 (12) SCC 778

¶105

Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini are relevant:

¶106

“18. From the aforesaid decisions the requirement of the landlord of the suit accommoda�on is to be established as a genuine need and not a pretext to get the accommoda�on vacated. The provisions of Sec�ons 18-A (4) and (5) concede to the tenant’s right to defend the proceedings ini�ated under Sec�on 13-B showing that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine or bona fide. The legisla�ve intent for seDng up of a special procedure for NRI landlords is obvious from the legisla�ve text which has been deliberately designed making dis�nc�on between the ordinary landlords and special category of landlords. The Controller’s power to give leave to contest the applica�on filed under Sec�on 13-B is restricted by the condi�on that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disen�tle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession. It is needless to say that in the summary proceedings the tenant’s right to contest the applica�on would be restricted to the parameters of Sec�on 13-B of the Act. He cannot widen the scope of his defence by relying on any other fact which does not fall within the parameters of Sec�on 13-B. The tenant’s defence is restricted and cannot go beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act applicable to the NRI landlord. Under Sec�on 13-B the landlord is en�tled to evic�on if he requires the suit accommoda�on for his or her use or the use of the dependent, who ordinarily lives with him or her. The requirement would necessarily have to be genuine or bona fide requirement and it cannot be said that although the requirement is not genuine or bona fide, he would be en�tled to the ejectment of the tenant nor can it be said that in no circumstances will the tenant not be allowed to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine or bona fide. A tenant’s right to defend the claim of the landlord under Sec�on 13-B for ejectment would arise if the tenant could be able to show that the landlord in the proceedings is not an NRI landlord; that he is not the owner thereof or that his ownership is not for the required period of five

¶107

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶108

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 14 of 18

¶109

years before the ins�tu�on of proceedings and that the landlord’s requirement is not bona fide.”

¶110

8(C) The third ground on which the learned Rent Controller has rejected the pe��oner’s evic�on pe��on is that it has been proven on record that pe��oner owns other shops.

¶111

From the discussion hereinabove, it is established that demised shop is situated in the same building where other 23/25 shops are situated. In this regard, the site plan (Exhibit R1) produced by the tenant himself, is very relevant, which is available at page 181 of the LCR which shows that demised shop, along with several other/25 other shops, is part of one building namely “Bagri Shopping Complex”.

¶112

8(C)(i) The provision, specifically sub-sec�on 2 of Sec�on 13-B is very clear, whereby it is open to the landlord to “ to make an applica�on under that sub-sec�on in respect of only one residen�al building or one scheduled building and/or one non-residen�al building, each chosen by him or her.” Thus, it is open to the pe��oner to seek evic�on of the respondent from the demised premises, even though he is owner of other shops in the same building.

¶113

8(C)(ii) Reliance may be placed on judgment of this Court in

¶114

CR-348 of 2016 �tled as “Harjit Singh Vs. Harcharan Singh” Law Finder

¶115

Doc ID # 1916127 wherein it has been held as follows:-

¶116

“A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restric�on Act, 1949, Sec�on 13B – Non

¶117

– Resident Indian – Order of evic�on – Bonafide necessity – Proof of – Tenant already protected under other related provisions of Act, if NRI landlord gets property vacated for malafide reasons – Provisions to ensure bona-fides in ac�on by NRI landlord against tenant, as were considered appropriate b legisla�on, are contained

¶118

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶119

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 15 of 18

¶120

in Sec�on 13-B of Act itself which en�tles tenant to get possession of property back in case of landlord lets out property to anybody else within period of 5 years – Hence, plea the NRI landlord required to prove bona-fides in ac�on against tenant misconceived.

¶121

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restric�on Act, 1949, Sec�on 13B – Non Resident Indian- Order of evic�on – Plea of non disclosure of other proper�es – Held, fact that NRI owns other proper�es, no bar for NRI to fle evic�on pe��on i – Therefore, even in exercise of any inherent powers, Court or as statutory authority Rent Controller; cannot dismiss pe��on merely on ground that landlord not filed pe��on with clean hands – Hence, order of evic�on upheld.”

¶122

(Emphasis supplied)

¶123

8(C)(iii) Reliance may also be placed on judgment of Hon’ble

¶124

Supreme Court in case of 2010 (9) SCC 452 Swami Nath Vs. Nirmal Singh

¶125

wherein it has been held as follows:-

¶126

“6. Similar submissions were advanced by the pe��oner in Special Leave Pe��on (Civil) No.8317 of 2006 before the High Court. In addi�on, it was urged that under the provisions of Sec�on 13-B, the landlord was en�tled to exercise his right of op�on for immediate possession only once and that having obtained vacant possession of a shop room in the building in ques�on, such right had been exhausted and the landlord was no longer en�tled to immediate possession as contemplated in Sec�on 13-B of the 1949 Act. It was sought to be urged that a shop room in a building would have to be treated as a separate unit or building for the purposes of Sec�on 13-B of the above Act as otherwise the very object of Sec�on 13-B would be frustrated as the landlord would have to approach the court repeatedly for obtaining possession of different parts of the building, which was not contemplated in the said sec�on.”

¶127

9. It was also urged that the provisions of sub-sec�on (1) of Sec�on 13-B would have to be read in a manner so as not to defeat the main purpose and object of the Act. It was submiCed that recourse could, therefore, be had to the provisions of Sec�on

¶128

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶129

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 16 of 18

¶130

13-B only once which would support the theory that each shop room or other premises in the building would have to be treated as a separate unit and the landlord would be en�tled to make a choice as to which of the units he wished to take possession of immediately. It was submiCed that in these cases, since the landlord had already obtained possession of a por�on of the building, it must be deemed that he had exhausted his op�on as given under Sec�on 13-B and in order to evict the other tenants from the premises in ques�on, he would have to file regular evic�on pe��ons before the Rent Controller concerned, who would have to deal with the same in the regular manner without resor�ng to the emergency provisions of Sec�on 13-B of the 1949 Act.

¶131

13. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini where the same ques�on had come up for considera�on and it was observed that on a plain reading of the provisions of Sec�on 13-B, it would be obvious that once in a life�me possession is given to an NRI to get one building vacated in a summary manner. It was also submiCed that the ownership of the respondent landlord in respect of only one building had not been disputed by the pe��oners and the only conten�on that was raised on their behalf was that each separate tenancy in a building would amount to a separate unit and a0er exhaus�ng the right of summary possession once, it was no longer available to the NRI landlord to exercise such an op�on for the second �me to a par�cular building, which conten�on had been negated by the courts below.

¶132

14. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respec�ve par�es and we are unable to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the pe��oners. The interpreta�on sought to be given to the proviso to Sec�on 13-B(1) of the 1949 Act would lead to an absurd situa�on which was not contemplated by the legislature while introducing the provisions of Sec�on 13-B by way of amendment in 2001. The very object of the amendment would be frustrated if the narrow and constricted

¶133

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶134

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 17 of 18

¶135

meaning being canvassed on behalf of the pe��oners is to be accepted.

¶136

15. The provisions of Sec�on 13-B of the 1949 Act have been correctly interpreted and dealt with in Baldev Singh Bajwa case and in that view of the maCer, the special leave pe��ons must fail and are dismissed. IA No.2 of 2006 filed in SLP © No.11719 of 2006 by Gurdeep Ram to be impleaded as party in his personal capacity, is also disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶137

8(C)(iv) Moreover, it is well-se=led proposi�on of law that it is not open to the tenant to dictate terms and condi�ons to the landlord, and the landlord is the best judge of his own needs. In this regard, reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 2021 (2) Scale 333 Law Finder Doc id # 1800986 Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh & Another wherein it has been held that tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord. Head note of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶138

“East Punjab Urban Rent Restric�on Act, 1949, Sec�on 2(dd) and Sec�on 13B read with Sec�on 18A – Evic�on – Bona fide requirement of NRI landlord – Leave to contest – Genuine need of appellants to secure vacant possession of premises for proposed business found to be established – Adequacy or otherwise of space available with landlord for business not for tenant to dictate – Special procedure for NRI landlord deliberately designed by Legislature to speedily secure possession of tenanted premises for bona fide need of NRI landlords and such legisla�ve intent to confer right of summary evic�on, as a one �me measure cannot be frustrated without strong reason – Held, tenants failed to provide adequate reason to secure right to contest summary proceedings and they should not be allowed to widen scope of

¶139

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶140

2023:PHHC:056006 Page 18 of 18

¶141

limited defense under Sec�on 13B – Hence, rejec�on of leave to contest applica�on upheld.”

¶142

It has also been stated by respondent in his wri=en statement to the ejectment pe��on that need of the pe��oner is not genuine. It has been further stated therein that, “ the pe��oner does not require the demised property for his personal use and occupa�on; rather the pe��oner wants to re-let the same at higher rate a0er geDng the same vacated from the respondent. ” In my view, said defense of the respondent is misconceived as sub-sec�on 3 of Sec�on 13B imposes a restric�on on the landlord that he shall not transfer through sale or any other means or lease out the ejected premises before the expiry of period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. In the event of breach of any of the condi�ons of sub-sec�on 3 of Sec�on 13-B of the Act, the tenant is given right of restora�on of possession of the said building. It is thus, clear that landlord is prohibited from transferring or leJng out the demised shop for a period of five years a)er geJng the same vacated from present tenant.

¶143

Accordingly, in view of the discussion hereinabove, the present Revision Pe��on is allowed, and the impugned order dated 15.10.2012 is set aside.

¶144

Pending applica�on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶145

Sunena 20.04.2023

¶146

(Nidhi Gupta) Judge

¶147

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶148

SUNENA 2023.04.21 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Satwant Singh v. Ram Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satwant Singh v. Ram Kumar Sharma

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamla Devi and Others Vs Balraj and Others

Surekha Mittal Vs Raj Kumar

Baldev Raj Vs Jasjit Kaur & Ors.

Neha Gupta Vs Maya Academy of Advanced Cinematics and Anr.

Maninder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Major Singh Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Department and Ors.