Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1041 (PNJ)

S. Nirmal Singh v. Punjab National Bank

2009-05-30

K.KANNAN

body2009
JudgmentJudgment K.Kannan, J. 1. In a petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , the tenant sought for leave to defend on two grounds that the landlord had earlier filed a petition for eviction under Section 13 which was dismissed and he was barred from filing an application afresh. The other ground viz. the bona fides of the landlord, who was admittedly an NRI, was suspect since earlier to the filing of the petition, the landlord had issued a notice demanding a higher amount as payable as an expression of an intention of the landlord to raise the rent and not to vacate the premises and the petition had been filed only to secure a hard bargain of increase in rent. 2. The Rent Controller rejected the objection taken by the tenant regarding the non-maintainability of the petition that the landlord had filed earlier application under Section 13 and found the plea of res judicata as contended by him was not legally justified. As regards the other objection namely of the landlords demand for determination of a higher rate of rent or mesne profits for the period after 03.05.1995 when the period of tenancy had expired and the plea that the tenant was liable to pay the rent at the market rate as constituting a defence which if accepted, the landlords petition was liable for dismissal. The Rent Controller permitted the tenant leave to defend. It is against this order that the landlord is in revision. 3. After the notice of revision has been served on 20.04.2009, there is no representation on behalf of the Bank. The matter is, therefore, taken up for final consideration with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out to the fact that the original lease deed dated 03.05.1983 was for a tenure of seven years and the document also provided for an extension for a further period of five years. The rent stipulated under the document was Rs. 1.50 per square feet and by such a reckoning, the rent which was payable was Rs. 4194/-. It was matter of record that a notice to vacate the premises had been given on the expiry of the lease period that stood extended upto 05.04.1995. The rent stipulated under the document was Rs. 1.50 per square feet and by such a reckoning, the rent which was payable was Rs. 4194/-. It was matter of record that a notice to vacate the premises had been given on the expiry of the lease period that stood extended upto 05.04.1995. It was also followed by a petition under Section 13 but it was not prosecuted, which according to the learned counsel was on account of the fact that landlords wife was suffering from serious illness and therefore, he had to go back to Canada to nurse her. Admittedly, the tenant had paid rent only upto December 1997 and subsequently completely defaulted in payment of rent. Nearly after 8 years on 10.06.2005, on the occasion when the tenant had not been paying the rent, the landlord issued a notice that the continuance in possession after the period of lease had expired was unjustified and the tenant cannot treat himself to be liable to. pay rent only at the rate which was previously stipulated at Rs. 1.50 per square feet under the lease deed dated 03.05.1983 and that the tenant was liable to pay for all the period from December, 1997 till the date of issue of notice rent at the market rate. This, in the submission was a reasonable demand on a tenant, which was a Bank that did not pay the rent for a long period. The notice concluded with a statement that if the tenant desired to continue it shall perforce pay rent at the market rate. This notice was construed by the Rent Controller as affording, the tenant a reasonable ground to suspect the bona fides of the landlord. 5. The issue of bona fides is never irrelevant even in a petition under Section 13-B but by the only fact that the tenant raises a dispute on the landlords petition, the Rent Controller shall not always doubt the same. If the notice were to be construed in isolation, the inference which the Rent Controller made was perhaps justified. 5. The issue of bona fides is never irrelevant even in a petition under Section 13-B but by the only fact that the tenant raises a dispute on the landlords petition, the Rent Controller shall not always doubt the same. If the notice were to be construed in isolation, the inference which the Rent Controller made was perhaps justified. But if it should be seen in the context of a financial institution such as a Bank remaining possession of property without paying rent for nearly, 8 years and without obtaining a fresh lease from the landlord, the demand of the landlord could be seen as justified of the fact that the tenant would not dilude himself into thinking that even the past rent would be collected only @ Rs. 1.50 per square feet but the tenant had to pay rent at the market rate. Again, even apart from the notice dated 10.06.2005, the subsequent event that had taken place and which was also disclosed in the petition was that the landlord had retired from service and he was, therefore, returning to India to occupy the premises. This was again _ not immediately after the notice that was issued on 10.06.2005 but nearly three years had elapsed. There was certainly a change in the circumstances when the landlord was justified in requiring his premises. A consideration of all the circumstances clearly showed that there was prima facie material for the landlord to sustain the petition for eviction on a fast track under Section 13-B and the suspicion that was raised by a reference to demand of higher rent on 10.06.2005 could have hardly survived till 2008 for a tenant to contend that the landlords requirement was not bona fide. The leave to defend that was granted in favour of the tenant was on a defence that was too fragile and the Court ought to have refused the leave and proceeded to examine the landlords requirement and passed an appropriate order. The Order of the Rent Controller is, therefore, set aside and the leave to defend granted by the Court below; is rejected. The matter is remitted to. the Rent Controller to take up the petition and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.