M/s. Chandigarh Finance and Investment Company vs Sukhminder Singh Bhattal and Others

Jaswant Singh, J.—Petitioner (tenant) is in revision u/s 18A(8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby leave to contest has been declined and his eviction has been ordered from the demised premises comprising rear portion of first floor of SCO No. 369-370, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondents (landlords) filed an ejectment application u/s 13B of the Act on the ground that all the respondents are NRIs and want to settle in India. Now they intend to come back and open a hotel in Chandigarh and the demised premises, which is owned by them is ideal to start a venture as the demised premises is situated in Sector 35, Chandigarh which is a hub of hotel industry in Chandigarh. Thus, it was stated that the entire building is required by them so as to start above mentioned business. It was also mentioned in the ejectment application that separate proceedings are being initiated against the remaining tenants to get the premises vacated. Hence the present petition.

Upon notice, petitioner (tenant) appeared and filed an application for leave to contest, wherein he denied the petitioners to be NRIs and it was stated that the requirement of respondents is not genuine. Hence prayer was made to allow the application for leave to contest the petition.

Respondents (landlords) filed reply to the application denying the averments and reiterating the contents of the ejectment application and prayed for dismissal of the application for leave to contest.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh declined the application for leave to contest and allowed the ejectment application of the respondent (landlord) and gave the petitioner (tenant) three months time to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises. Aggrieved against the same the present petition has been preferred.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioned tenant) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. Learned Counsel for the petitioned tenant) has argued that the learned Rent Controller has erred in law by setting aside the objections raised by the petitioner (tenant) qua the fact that the respondents (landlords) have not been able to fulfill the ingredients as required u/s 13B of the Act and thus on this ground alone, leave to contest should have been allowed and petitioner (tenant) should have been permitted to lead evidence so as to prove the disputed facts. It was also argued that none of the petitioners fall within the definition of Non Resident Indians and hence they cannot be permitted to be a NRI-landlord.

After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) and going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. In order to get an ejectment order passed under this Section, a landlord has to fulfill certain basic ingredients which are enumerated below:-

(i) landlord should be owner of the premises for the last 5 years;

(ii) the landlord must be an NRI;

(iii) landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation or for any one living and dependent upon him;

In the present case, a perusal of the paper book reveals that the demised premises was allotted to Guldeep Singh and others through a lease deed dated 5.3.1980 whereby leasehold rights were given for 99 years. The said leasehold rights were transferred in favour of present respondents vide transfer deed dated 22.03.1980. Hence, in the present case the respondents (landlords) have been able to fulfill the first ingredient of being owners of the property for the past more than 5 years. It is by now settled proposition of law that if a person is holding leasehold rights for 99 years, he has, for all intents and purposes been the owner of the property and is entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 13B of the Act for ejectment of the tenant from the premises in question. I draw support from the judgment of this Court passed in Kanwaljit Singh Vs. Banarsi Dass, Hence the first ingredient is fulfilled.

As far as the second ingredient is concerned, it has been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, that a person, whose parents, grandparents or great grandparents were born in India, would be covered under the definition of the Act of 1949 and it is not necessary that a person should be a citizen of India. In the present case there is no dispute about the fact that some of the respondents were born in India and had later on shifted abroad whereas parents of others were born in India itself. Hence, the respondents (landlords) are covered under the definition of NRI within the purview of Section 13B of the Act.

Finally, as far as the requirement of the demised premises for personal necessity is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the reasoning given by the respondents(landlords) in their ejectment application seems to be quite plausible and it is duly supported by affidavit and as per the requirement of Section 13B of the Act, the same is enough for ordering eviction of the petitioner (tenant) from the demised premises as presumption has to be taken by the Court that the contents of same are correct until and unless there is some concrete proof to rebut it. However, in the present case, petitioner (tenant) has not brought out any fact which would rebut the prima facie presumption of correctness of facts stated in ejectment application.

Thus from the foregoing discussion it becomes clear that all the ingredients as required under law have been fulfilled by the respondents (landlords) and the objection taken by the petitioner (tenant) to the effect that the ingredients as required under law have not been fulfilled is completely devoid of any merit and the same is hereby rejected. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.