Parminder Singh vs Jatinder Singh Grewal and others

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 13743-CII of 2012

The application is allowed and Annexure P-5 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CIVIL REVISION NO.2183 OF 2012

One of the tenants Parminder Singh has filed this revision petition u/s 18-A(8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) assailing order dated 21.03.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana thereby dismissing application filed by petitioner herein as well as application filed by proforma respondents No. 2 and 3 herein (brother and mother of the petitioner) for leave to contest the ejectment petition, which was instituted by respondent No. 1-landlord-Jatinder Singh Grewal u/s 13-B of the Act.

The landlord alleged that he is Non-Resident Indian (NRI). The demised property (ground floor portion of the house) was let out to Ravinder Singh father of the petitioner herein (predecessor of petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 herein). The landlord has one room on first floor of the said house in his possession. After death of Ravinder Singh, tenancy has been inherited by petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 herein. The landlord alleged that he and his wife used to live with his parents on visits to India but now they are not pulling on well. Accordingly the landlord sought eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal necessity of the demised property.

Tenants filed two applications for leave to contest the ejectment petition controverting the averments made by the landlord. It was pleaded that neither the landlord is NRI nor his need is bonafide.

The landlord controverted the averments made by the tenants and reiterated the averments made in the ejectment petition.

Learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide impugned order dated 21.03.2012 dismissed both the applications filed by the tenants for leave to contest the ejectment petition and consequently vide separate brief order of even date, ordered ejectment of the tenants from the demised premises. Feeling aggrieved, only tenant No. 1 Parminder Singh has filed this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No. 1-landlord is not NRI as defined in the Act and, therefore, petition on his behalf u/s 13-B of the Act is not maintainable. It was argued that the landlord while appearing as witness in a separate petition u/s 13 of the Act admitted in cross-examination that he had gone to Canada on study visa. Relying on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Baldev Singh Bajwa versus Monish Saini, 2005 (2) RCJ 110, it was contended that a person going abroad on study visa is not NRI for the purpose of the Act. The legal preposition as canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the instant case because the landlord after initially having gone to Canada on study visa, later on got permanent resident status in Canada. He had acquired the said status before filing the instant ejectment petition. He was also working at gas station in Canada. Consequently when the ejectment petition was filed, the landlord was abroad not on study visa but was resident of Canada with status of permanent resident and was also working there. Consequently judgment in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa (supra) has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. Respondent No. 1-landlord is NRI for the purpose of the Act and was also NRI when he filed the ejectment petition.

Counsel for the petitioner next contended that admittedly first floor portion of the same house is in possession of the landlord and, therefore, the question whether the accommodation already in possession of the landlord is insufficient for his requirement raised a triable issue and, therefore, leave to contest the ejectment petition should be granted. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Amarjit Singh Chadha versus Col. Jasbir Singh Likhari, 2011 (3) PLR 127. This contention is also not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Perusal of ejectment petition Annexure P-1 reveals that the landlord has only one room on first floor in his possession. Obviously one room accommodation cannot be said to be sufficient to meet the needs of the landlord who also has his wife. No further probe is required to determine whether one room accommodation already with the landlord is insufficient for his requirement. Without any probe, it can be safely said that the said accommodation of one room is not sufficient for the landlord and his wife.

Counsel for the petitioner next contended that before filing the present ejectment petition u/s 13-B of the Act, landlord had also filed ejectment petition u/s 13 of the Act and continued to pursue the same even after filing the instant ejectment petition. It was contended that the landlord could not pursue both the remedies simultaneously and had to elect one of the two remedies. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on two judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company versus Mastan & another, 2006 (2) All MR 118 and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corp. versus M/s. Gar Re-Rolling Mills, 1994 AIR (SC) 2151. However, I find no merit in this contention either. Judgment in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (supra) relates to Sections 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (in short, the Corporation Act). u/s 29 of the Corporation Act, financial corporation can itself proceed against the industry concerned (principal debtor) whereas u/s 31 of the Corporation Act, financial corporation can move the Court of District Judge against guarantor as well as against the principal debtor. However u/s 29 of the Act, financial corporation itself cannot proceed against the guarantor. Consequently judgment in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Judgment in the case of National Insurance Company (supra) is also not attracted to the instant case. Remedies u/s 13 and 13-B of the Act proceed on different criteria and are independent remedies and can be pursued simultaneously. This view of mine finds support from judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Trehan Auto Parts versus Kuldip Singh Sahi, 2010 (1) RLR 248. The landlord has independent rights to proceed u/s 13 as well as u/s 13-B of the Act and, therefore, the instant petition u/s 13-B of the Act cannot be said to be barred or to have been abandoned merely because the landlord had already filed ejectment petition u/s 13 of the Act and continued to pursue the same even after filing of the instant ejectment petition. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the tenants failed to make out sufficient ground for grant of leave to contest the ejectment petition. Applications for leave to contest the ejectment petition have been rightly dismissed by the Rent Controller. There is no infirmity much less perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the Rent Controller so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.