Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1327 (PNJ)

Naresh Gupta v. Ranvir Kumar Duggal

2014-09-22

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2014
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This petition is filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 06.05.2014 dismissing his application filed under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (here-in-after referred to as the "Act"). In brief, the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises bearing No. 84, Dada Colony, near Industrial Area, Jalandhar, which is in occupation of India Pack Well Industries, Jalandhar through its proprietor as its tenant. It was alleged in the eviction petition that the respondent is the owner of the demised property by way of registered sale deed dated 23.02.1965; he has no other accommodation and has not vacated any such premises after the commencement of the Act; the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the respondent-landlord at a monthly rent of ` 6,000/- per month about 12 years back orally and since their relationship was cordial, no rent receipt was either demanded or issued; and now the premises is required by the respondent-landlord for his personal use and occupation as he intends to return to his native land and wants to settle at Jalandhar, therefore, he asked the petitioner-tenant to vacate the demised premises. 2. The petitioner-tenant, however, had filed an application under Section 18-A of the Act seeking leave of the Court to defend the eviction petition alleging that the demised premises was rented out by Krishan Gopal, brother of the respondent-landlord, as owner to M/s. India Packaging Company, through its partner Ashwani Kumar vide rent note dated 09.01.1992. It is denied that the demised premises was ever rented out to Shri Naresh Gupta, rather it was alleged that it was rented out to M/s. Indian Packaging Company. It was further averred that the rent was never settled @ ` 6,000/- per month, but it was settled @ ` 5,000/- per month and at present the rent is ` 7,320/- per month, which has been deposited by the petitioner-tenant in the account of Shri Krishan Gopal who rented out the demised premises. It was denied that the respondent-landlord is an NRI and having any right to file any petition under Section 13-B of the Act. 3. The said application was contested by the respondent-landlord by filing reply. 4. The Rent Controller, vide its impugned order dated 06.05.2014, dismissed the application for leave to defend. It was denied that the respondent-landlord is an NRI and having any right to file any petition under Section 13-B of the Act. 3. The said application was contested by the respondent-landlord by filing reply. 4. The Rent Controller, vide its impugned order dated 06.05.2014, dismissed the application for leave to defend. In order to reach to this conclusion, the learned Rent Controller had found that the requirement of law is that an NRI must be the owner of the property for more than 5 years and mere execution of rent note dated 09.01.1992, purported to have been executed in favour of M/s. Indian Packaging Company through Ashwani Kumar, is of no help to the petitioner-tenant. It was also observed that the said rent note does not bear the signatures of the present landlord or even does not mention his name as it only refers to Krishan Gopal son of Hans Raj who is not held to be the owner of the demised premises as the sale deed of the property in dispute is in the name of the present landlord (respondent herein). As far as the account books of M/s. India Packaging Company in the name of Ashwani Kumar are concerned, those books do not lend credence to the case set up by the tenant as the books of accounts have not been signed by the tenant herein. The Rent Controller had found that Krishan Gopal no doubt is the brother of the landlord, but there is no authorization in his favour to let out the demised premises and receive the rent. 5. While relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005(4) Recent Civil Reports 492 (S.C.), the Rent Controller had come to the conclusion that no prima facie evidence is available with the tenant to seek leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the NRI landlord under Section 13-B of the Act as the said provision provides that the landlord must be an NRI; returned to India permanently or for the temporary period; required the demised premises for his use and occupation; is owner of the property for the last five years before the institution of the proceedings for ejectment before the Controller; and has not filed any other such proceedings. The Rent Controller had found from perusal of the documents placed on record that the respondent-landlord is an NRI and owner of the property in dispute from the past 5 years before filing of the eviction petition and has not filed any such petition in the past. It was also found that the respondent-landlord has made an averment that the property in dispute is required for his personal use and occupation and in view thereof, the application for leave to defend was dismissed. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued while referring to the various income tax returns placed on record by way of miscellaneous application indicating the rent having been paid, but the fact remains that nothing has been brought on record to show that the demised premises is not in possession of M/s. Indian Pack Well Industries or Krishan Gopal, brother of the respondent-landlord, had ever been authorized by him to execute the rent note in favour of M/s. Indian Packaging Company and to receive the rent. 7. Thus, looking from any angle, I do not find any reason to interfere in the well considered order of the Rent Controller in dismissing the application filed by the tenant under Section 18-A of the Act seeking leave to defend an application filed by the NRI landlord under Section 13-B of the Act. Consequently, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit.