Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1898 (PNJ)

Ramesh Kumar v. Vishal Jain @ Rishab Jain

2021-12-09

ANIL KSHETARPAL

body2021
Judgment Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. :-Civil Revision No.2733 of 2013, has been filed by the tenant.The respondent in Civil Revision No.2733 of 2013 (Vishal Jain @ RishabJain son of late Sh. Vinod Jain), filed a petition under Section 13-B of theEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the1949 Act), seeking eviction of the tenant. Section 13-B of the 1949 Act enables a Non Resident Indian (NRI) to recover immediate possession of theresidential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building. There is a provision which enables the tenant to seek leave to defend. In thepresent case, leave to defend was granted. The learned Rent Controller hasgiven an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Rent Controller has ordered eviction of the tenant. Thisrevision petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of the 1949 Act. 2.This Bench has heard the learned Senior counsel representingthe respective parties and with their able assistance perused the paper book aswell as record which was requisitioned. 3.The learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner hascontended that Sh. Rishab Jain has failed to prove his ownership. Whileelaborating, he contends that Smt. Charan Dei @ Charan Devi Jain, was theowner of the property. She executed a Will, bequeathing the property indispute in favour of her four grand-children. He submits that in the Will, theproperty has been bequeathed in favour of Vishal Jain and not Rishab Jain.He contends that the respondent-landlord has failed to prove that he is onlyknown by the name of Vishal Jain. He submits that the Court must draw anadverse inference against the respondent. The second argument of learnedSenior counsel representing the petitioner is that the respondent has nointention to come back to India, as after filing the petition on 22.04.2009, therespondent applied for and was granted a British Passport. He, hence,contends that the Court must draw an adverse inference that the respondentdoes not have an intention to come back to India. 4.Per contra, the learned Senior counsel representing therespondent while drawing the attention of the Court to the statement ofVishal Jain @ Rishab Jain who has appeared as PW1 before the learned RentController has stated that in fact he is Rishab Jain but is also known as VishalJain. 4.Per contra, the learned Senior counsel representing therespondent while drawing the attention of the Court to the statement ofVishal Jain @ Rishab Jain who has appeared as PW1 before the learned RentController has stated that in fact he is Rishab Jain but is also known as VishalJain. He submits that the respondent in his petition under Section 13-B of the1949 Act, the power of attorney given to the mother as well as in evidencehas stated that he is Rishab Jain @ Vishal Jain. He further submits that therespondent applied for British Passport in order to facilitate his visits toUK. However, that itself cannot be a ground to dismiss the petition particularlywhen Sh. Rishab Jain has appeared in evidence and has stated on oath that hewished to come back and settle down in his own country. 5.After having heard the learned Senior counsel representing theparties, this Court proceeds to resolve the controversy. It is not in dispute thatRishab Jain is son of late Sh. Vinod Jain son of Sh. Charan Devi. There is noevidence that late Sh. Vinod Jain had another son with the name of VishalJain. In fact, it has come on record that late Sh. Vinod Jain has another son Vinay Jain. There is no evidence that Sh. Vinod Jain has more than two sons.Sh. Rishab Jain has appeared in evidence and stated that his name is RishabJain @ Vishal Jain although, in the official record, he is known as RishabJain. The initial onus placed on the respondent stands discharged. Thepetitioner (tenant) has not led any evidence to prove that Sh. Vinod Jain hasmore than two sons. It is well settled that the civil proceedings are required tobe decided on preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the learnedRent Controller has already on appreciation of evidence found that theevidence of Rishab Jain is worth acceptance. In absence of any perversity, theRevisional Court does not get jurisdiction to interfere. 6.It may be noted here that once Sh. Rishab Jain appeared inevidence and stated that he is also known with the name of Vishal Jain, hencethere is no occasion to draw an adverse inference. 7.Now, let us examine the second argument of the learned Seniorcounsel representing the petitioner. 6.It may be noted here that once Sh. Rishab Jain appeared inevidence and stated that he is also known with the name of Vishal Jain, hencethere is no occasion to draw an adverse inference. 7.Now, let us examine the second argument of the learned Seniorcounsel representing the petitioner. At this stage, it will be appropriate tonotice Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, which enable a Non Resident Indianwho is an owner of a property to file eviction petition in order to recoverimmediate possession of the tenanted premises. This right is given only oncein the lifetime of an owner. The respondent is admittedly a Non ResidentIndian. The argument of learned Senior counsel representing the petitioneris that since the respondent applied for British Passport after filing the presentpetition therefore, the Court must draw an adverse inference that he is notserious to return India. In the considered view of the Court, there is nooccasion to such an inference in absence of material to that effect merely,because the respondent (landlord) applied for and was issued a BritishPassport does not necessarily carry on assumption, that the respondent is notinterested in coming back to India. Sh. Rishab Jain has appeared in evidencein the year 2012. He had been grilled during the cross-examination however,the counsel representing the tenant failed to impeach his credibility. 8.Furthermore, a Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9SCC 78, has held that in absence of perversity, the High Court should notinterfere in the revisional jurisdiction. 9.Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. 10.In view of the order passed in CR-2733-2013, the learned seniorcounsel representing the petitioner in CR-3002-2021, prays that this revisionpetition be dismissed as not pressed. 11.Ordered accordingly. 12.All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are alsodisposed of.