Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2989 (PNJ)

Sodhi Ram Sandhu v. Manvinder Singh

2006-07-24

HEMANT GUPTA

body2006
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 19.11.2005, passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be ejected, in proceedings under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , as amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. One Kewal Singh, who had purchased the shop on 3.7.1972, inducted the petitioner No. 1, as tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 450/-. The rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 600/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.1995. Said Kewal Singh died on 16.8.1989, leaving behind Harbans Kaur as his widow and sons namely Gurmit Singh and Manvinder Singh. It is Manvinder Singh who has filed the present petition under Section 13-B of the Act, on the ground that he is Non-Resident-Indian and owner of the property for the last five years and that he requires the shops in question for his bona fide requirement, therefore, the petitioner-tenant is liable to be evicted from the property. 3. The learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence returned the findings that after the death of Kewal Singh, all his legal heirs became the joint owners of the property in question and that status of one of the co- owner does not come to an end merely on account of receipt of rent by the other co-owner. The learned Rent Controller after considering the facts of the previous ejectment petition filed by Harbans Kaur, held that the applicant Manvinder Singh as one of the co-owners of the property in question, is competent to seek ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. Further, it has been found that Harbans Kaur, the other co-owner has supported the case of the applicant and other co-sharer Gurmit Singh appeared as witness. In fact, Harbans Kaur appeared as attorney of the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the applicant has sought ejectment on the ground that shop in dispute came to his share in a family settlement and such family settlement shows that it was the `Green portion which came to the share of the applicant and whereas ejectment has been sought from the portion shown as `Red in the site plan. An application has been filed by the respondent-landlord to show that there is a mistake in the ejectment petition and the word `Green should be substituted as `Red in para No. 9 of the ejectment petition. 5. A perusal of the ejectment petition, Annexure P-2, produced by the petitioners, shows that the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner has been reflected with boundaries. The identity of the property in question is not disputed. It is pointed out that the description of the property in the ejectment petition, has been given by boundaries. The witnesses of the landlord have also deposed about the identity of the tenanted premises in dispute. Therefore, wrong description in one of the paragraphs of the ejectment petition will not make the ejectment petition bad. 6. In any case, the landlord has sought amendment in the ejectment petition. Such amendment clarifies the description in respect of the tenanted premises. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the tenant for the first time in revision that execution petition suffers from wrong description of the premises. 7. It is further argued that it was Harbans Kaur who has sought ejectment of the petitioner earlier and therefore, Manvinder Singh is not competent to seek ejectment by filing the present petition under Section 13-B of the Act. The said argument is again misconceived. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he was inducted as tenant by Kewal Singh. After the death of Kewal Singh, his widow and sons inherited the property as co-owners. Under Section 13-B of the Act, one of the co-owners is competent to seek ejectment. Reliance was placed upon judgment of Honble Supreme Court in cases Dharampal Sood v. Swaran Singh, 2006(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 806 : 2006(1) RCR 515 (P&H) and Kewal Krishan v. Mohan Singh, 2006(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 442 : 2006(1) RCR 405 (P&H), wherein it has been held that one co-owner is competent to seek ejectment under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the bona fide requirement projected by the respondents is not proved. It has been held in case titled as Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Munish Saini, 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 470 : 2005(4) RCR(Civil) 492 (SC) : 2005(4) RCR(Civil) 2492, that the landlord need not physically come back India to seek ejectment. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the bona fide requirement projected by the respondents is not proved. It has been held in case titled as Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Munish Saini, 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 470 : 2005(4) RCR(Civil) 492 (SC) : 2005(4) RCR(Civil) 2492, that the landlord need not physically come back India to seek ejectment. Still further, if the ingredients to seek ejectment under Section 13-B of the Act are satisfied, the bona fide requirement of the premises is presumed. The Act has provided sufficient safe-guard to the tenant in the event the landlord violates the provisions to seek eviction of a tenant in summary manner. In view of the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercising of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.