Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1585 (PNJ)

Malkit Singh v. Harjit Singh

2009-09-07

SURYA KANT

body2009
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 512, 514,515 and 516 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Revision No. 514 of 2008. 2. The petitioner - landlord is aggrieved at the order dated 12.11.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, granting leave to contest to the respondent-tenant in an eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, "the Act"). The petitioner has claimed that the demised premises bearing Municipal No. ES-65, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar is owned by him as a part thereof was purchased by him vide registered sale deed dated 30.1.1973, whereas the remaining part has been bequeathed in his favour by his brother Piara Singh. The petitioner asserts himself to be a "Non-Resident-Indian", who being a `specified landlord, is entitled to seek immediate possession of the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity as per the summary procedure of eviction laid down under Section 18-A of the Act. 3. The respondent as well as other tenant applied for `leave to contest and raised various pleas that may be summarized as under:- (a) the petitioner is not a Non-resident-Indian as he was born in Kenya and is presently holding a British Passport; (b) the demised premises is not one property and are two , whereas the petitioner is entitled for eviction from one building only; (c) the petitioner is not a landlord and/or owner of the demised premises. 4. The Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide the impugned order has granted leave to contest to the tenants primarily on the ground that though the petitioner has averred himself to be a "NRI", he has nowhere stated in the eviction petition that his parents or grandparents were born and brought up in India. It may be noticed that in view of Section 2(dd) of the Act, as interpreted by the Honble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, [2005] 12 SCC,778, a landlord who himself or whose parents or grand-parents were born and brought up in India, is entitled to be treated as a "NRI" subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions. Since the petitioner has not averred that his parents or grand parents were born or brought-up in India and he himself appears to have born in Kenya, the Rent Controller has granted the leave to contest to the tenants which would obviously enable the petitioner to lead evidence to prove that his parents or grand parents were born and brought up in India and as such he falls within the definition of a NRI within the meaning of Section 2[dd] of the Act. 5. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 6. Suffice it to observe here that some of contentions raised on behalf of the respondents do make out triable issue(s) and the Rent Controller appears to have committed no error of jurisdiction while granting leave to contest. While the petitioner can still prove that his parents or grand-parents were born and brought-up in India and he fulfills the requirements of Section 2[dd] of the Act, the respondents would also be at liberty to prove otherwise or that there are more than one commercial properties, which are subject matter of eviction petition as against the entitlement of the petitioner landlord for eviction from one property only. 7. As regards the petitioners title, in my considered view, the tenants have no locus - standi to question the execution of Will by the brother of the petitioner and/or the sale deed dated 30.1.1973. A tenant has no right to question the title of his landlord. Otherwise also, even if it is assumed that the Will executed by Piara Singh in favour of the petitioner is shrouded by suspicious circumstances, the fact remains that the petitioner is still a co- owner of the demised premises on the strength of the sale deed dated 30.1.1973 and is entitled to maintain an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwas case [supra] and by this Court in Maya Kishan v. Karam Singh, C R No. 3717 of 2009, decided on 8t h July, 2009. 8. 8. Similarly, it is imperative upon the Rent Controller to keep in view the legislative intent behind Section 18A[6] of the Act and dispose of the eviction petitions expeditiously by ensuring that not more than three opportunities are granted to the parties to lead their respective evidence even, if there are more than one triable issues. The eviction petition shall accordingly be disposed of preferably before 31.03.2010. Disposed of Dasti.