Jaspal Singh vs Kulwant Rai

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—Since all these petitions concern the same controversy to be adjudicated, these are being taken up together for adjudication.

These Civil Revision Petitions by the landlord, Jaspal Singh, are directed against order passed in favour of his tenants whereby in a petition u/s 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called as "the Act"), applications of the tenants seeking leave to defend the said petition had been allowed.

For convenience and clarity, facts are being taken from Civil Revision Petition No. 3377 of 2011 titled as Jaspal Singh V/s Kulwant Rai.

In a petition preferred by the landlord u/s 13-B of the Act, an application u/s 18-A(4) of the Act was made by the tenant seeking leave to defend the said petition, wherein relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was questioned by him, claiming that he neither had paid rent to the landlord nor had received any notice or intimation from him regarding transfer of ownership of the premises to him. Ground of personal bonafide need taken by the landlord had also been questioned.

This application of the tenant was contested tooth and nail by the landlord not only on facts but even on the ground of bonafides of the tenant. Notwithstanding resistance of the landlord to the application of the tenant, leave to defend was granted to the tenant vide impugned order of the Rent Controller.

By way of this revision petition, grant of leave to defend to the tenant has been questioned, claiming, that there was no ground available to the tenant on which he could seek leave to defend the application for eviction filed by the landlord under special provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. It is claimed that the Rent Controller proceeded to grant the leave to defend to the tenant merely because he had questioned locus standi of the landlord in filing the petition for ejectment.

Counsel for the petitioner-landlord has urged that the Rent Controller without going into the aspect of validity of the objection raised by the tenant and without even perusal of the pleadings of the parties in proper perspective, wrongly granted such permission to the tenant.

Counsel for the tenant on the other hand has urged that when there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was the landlord, his petition u/s 13-B was not even maintainable and the tenant has every right to question his locus standi as also maintainability of the petition by offering resistance even by denial of relationship of landlord and tenant.

Counsel for the parties have been heard, while going through the impugned order, grounds of revision and the attending facts and circumstances.

Claiming himself to be landlord-cum-owner of the premises under tenancy of the tenant-petitioner, he had brought a petition u/s 13-B of the Act for recovery of immediate possession of the premises, claiming, that being a Non-Resident Indian, he was entitled to the benefits of provisions of summary eviction of the tenant in terms of the Section 13-B read with Section 2(dd) of the Act as he required the premises for his personal bonafide use.

Petitioner-landlord is an Indian citizen settled in the United Kingdom. He has articulated that he wanted to permanently return to India and wanted the premises for his personal necessity as he wanted to open a car showroom and thus, there was necessity of vacant possession of all the shops including the present one located in one and the same building. It was clarified by him that he had neither any commercial property at Shahkot where the building was situated nor he had vacated any such land or building. Assertion of the petitioner that he is owner of the property for the last about 10 years whereas statutory requirement in this behalf is of 5 years is not under challenge. Sale deed in favour of the petitioner-landlord is of 08.01.2003, wherein it is clearly depicted that in the property purchased by the petitioner-landlord, 5 shops constructed in the year 1970 were already existing.

If we peruse the application made by the tenant u/s 18-A(4) of the Act, it transpires that the tenant had raised a plea that the premises were under the possession of firm M/s. Sant Ram Karyana Store, Moga Road, Shahkot. It is strange that the respondent-tenant claiming no concern with such an alleged firm has given so elaborate details about it that a person unconnected therewith could not have given such descriptive details. On close perusal of such details with plea of the tenant that he is unconnected therewith, it transpires that the firm which the tenant claims to be in possession of the premises, is not an entity (if it is any) which is stranger to him. In fact, he rather claims possession therein of his brother Kulwant Rai as sole proprietor of the firm with further averments that the rent is continuously being paid by the said firm since 1980 without disclosing as to whom.

Since the petitioner-landlord has claimed himself to be landlord-cum-owner of the premises since the time of purchase of the building vis. 08.01.2003, there is not even a whisper by the respondent as to whom the payment of rent is being made. If the respondent was genuine in his plea, he was to attach rent receipts in the name of his brother as proprietor of the alleged firm, but there is nothing such on record. It is clear that the Rent Controller fell prey to the nuances of the applicant-tenant while deciding his application u/s 18-A(4) of the Act and without even adjudicable pleas with the tenant wrongly granted him leave to defend, thus, defeating the purpose of Section 13-B providing for summary eviction of the tenant in special circumstances as contained in Section 13-B of the Act read with Section 2(dd) thereof.

During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner-landlord has made reference to a decision rendered by this Court on 12.08.2011 in respect of fifth shop of the landlord wherein also plea of denial of tenancy had been put forth by the tenant. At this stage, reference is required to be made to para 2 of the petition preferred by the petitioner-landlord u/s 13-B of the Act, wherein averments with regard to his being a landlord and owner of the premises have been made, which is reproduced as under:-

"2. That the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the premises fully detailed and described in the heading of the petition and shown in the site plan attached with the petition which consists of one unit and one shop from the unit shown red in colour in the site plan is taken by the respondent on rent where he is running shop of karyana at the rate of or Rs. 500/- per month since long, which is situated at Opposite Bobby Malhotra shop, near Police Station Moga Road, Shahkot, District Jalandhar. Petitioner is owner/landlord of the said premises in dispute and is an NRI. Respondent is tenant under the petitioner. There exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties."

While making application u/s 18-A(4) of the Act seeking leave to defend the said petition, the tenant in corresponding para 2 has taken no specific objection. Para 2 of such application of the tenant is reproduced as below:-

"(2) That the petition filed by the land lord applicant/Respondent is filed with Malafide intentions just to vacate the rented Building without any cause. The said petition is filed by the petitioner landlord with malafide intentions. He has not come in court with clean hands."

Even when averments made in the said application u/s 18-A(4) are considered independently, the tenant has not been able to clinch the issue and is evasive as also sweeping and has tried to side track the matter.

So far as question mark raised on the bonafides of the landlord by way of petition u/s 13-B of the Act is concerned, the said plea is not tenable because need of the tenant cannot be evaluated and appraised with the vision of a tenant unless there are perceptible strong circumstances militating against the claim of the landlord on this count.

There being generalised and sweeping averments questioning bonafides of the landlord, even such plea was not entertainable by the Rent Controller. In any case in terms of Sub-Section 3 of Section 13-B of the Act, there is a statutory protection available to a tenant for recovery of possession in case of default made by the landlords-cum-owners.

Concedingly there are five shops in the building which were sought to be vacated by the landlord filing petitions individually against all of them u/s 13-B of the Act.

It is clear that all the tenants making coercive group have ventured to thwart the claim of the landlord-cum-owner inter alia by taking plea of non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant.

When four petitions are being decided by this order, wherein leave to defend had been allowed to the tenant to contest petition in four petitions filed by the landlord Jaspal Singh has questioned his capacity as landlord. Though these revision petitions are being decided together, fifth one wherein also leave to defend was granted to the tenant and whom questioned by the landlord, had been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court which provides a sufficient indicator. Even in the cited judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court, the tenant has raised a similar plea that possession of the premises was not with him but was with someone else. Counsel for the respondent has not been able to wriggle out of the judgment dated 12.08.2011 of this court passed in Civil Revision No. 3119 of 2011 (O&M) in which counsel, for the parties as are in the present petition, were the same.

In view of the above, the revision petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside, application of respondent-tenant u/s 18-A(4) of the Act is declined.