Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2971 (PNJ)

Rashpal Kaur @ Rachpal Kaur v. Hardip Singh Gill

2019-11-13

JAISHREE THAKUR

body2019
Judgment Ms. Jaishree Thakur, J.:- This revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 9.9.2019 passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala, whereby an application for leave to defend eviction petition filed under Section 24 read with Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act 1995 has been dismissed. 2. In brief, the facts are that a petition was filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of personal necessity. In the said petition, it was pleaded that the landlord is an NRI and needs the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. The said petition was filed by the respondent/landlord through his brother Avtar Singh Gill as his General Power of Attorney. Since the petitioner herein did not appear before the Rent Controller despite service, therefore, he was proceeded against ex- parte, which ex-parte order was subsequently set aside and an application for leave to defend was filed after a delay of 240 days. Thereafter, an application for amendment of the petition was filed by the respondent/landlord, which was allowed on 12.4.2019 and the amended petition under Section 24 read with Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act 1995 was taken on record. The petitioner herein filed an application on 6.5.2019 seeking leave to defend, which was rejected on the ground that the application was not filed within prescribed period of 15 days of service of summons. Aggrieved against the dismissal of the application, the instant revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein would contend that a valuable right has been taken away by the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller, insofar as he has not been given permission to defend the eviction petition. It is contended that the General Power of Attorney, as relied by the respondent herein, is not a genuine document and, therefore, also pleads that the respondent is not an NRI. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find no infirmity in the impugned order declining the leave to defend the eviction petition. 5. Section 24 of the Punjab Rent Act 1995 has laid down a provision which allows a right to recover immediate possession of premises by widows, handicapped persons, old persons, freedom fighters and nonresident Indians. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find no infirmity in the impugned order declining the leave to defend the eviction petition. 5. Section 24 of the Punjab Rent Act 1995 has laid down a provision which allows a right to recover immediate possession of premises by widows, handicapped persons, old persons, freedom fighters and nonresident Indians. The term “non-resident Indian” has been explained as a person of Indian origin who is either permanently or temporarily settled outside India, but an onus has been cast upon the tenant to put in appearance and file an application for leave to defend within a period of 15 days of having been served with a notice to appear. In the instant case, the petitioner herein was appearing before the Rent Controller and was aware of the amendment having been allowed converting the petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Act into a petition under Section 24 read with Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act 1995. The petitioner herein failed to make a necessary application for leave to defend within a period of 15 days as specified under the Act and, therefore, the Rent Controller had no option but to dismiss the same. It needs to be noted that the amendment was allowed on 12.4.2019 and the application for leave to defend was filed on 6.5.2019, which was clearly beyond the period of 15 days. As rightly held an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay would not be applicable to these proceedings and Rent Controller would have no power to condone the said delay. 6. Consequently, finding no infirmity with the impugned order of the Rent Controller, dismissing the application for leave to defend having been filed beyond the period of limitation, the revision petition is dismissed.