Rajesh Kumar Sharma and another vs Roshan Lal Puri

Surya Kant, J.—This revision petition is preferred by the tenants against the order dated 14.08.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, whereby, they have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises situated in Mohalla, Krishna Nagar, Hoshiarpur in an eviction petition filed u/s 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act).

The respondent filed the eviction petition, inter alia, averring that he is a co-sharer in the demised premises let out to the petitioners at a monthly rent of Rs. 650/- p.m. He further averred that he is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), who has already returned India and requires the demised premises for his residence as he wants to settle down in India permanently.

In order to establish his co-ownership in the demised premises, the respondent averred that the subject property was owned by his mother Smt. Gian Wati Puri who passed away on 28.02.1993. The death certificate of Smt. Gian Wati Puri was appended with the eviction petition. Similarly, in order to establish his NRI status, the respondent appended Photostat copy of his Passport and further disclosed that he migrated to UK where he was working as a Senior Manager in Excel International Logistics Ltd. and having retired from the said Company in October, 2001 that he has returned back to India to settle down permanently. The respondent also disclosed that he is also a co-sharer in another property situated in Mohalla Katcha Toba, Hoshiarpur which is measuring about 2-1/2 marla and is in a shape of khola which is at all not liveable or useable.

Upon notice the petitioner-tenants moved an application dated 09.03.2007 u/s 18-A of the Act and sought leave to contest. While denying the status of the respondent as a NRI, the petitioners took the following plea in para 2(iii)(vii) of their above mentioned application :

(iii). The petitioner himself is not sole owner of the premises in question as premises in question was earlier owned by his parents and after the death of his parents, premises in question was inherited by four natural and legal heirs equally. Thus all of the other legal and natural heirs are also the owners of the premise in question. The petitioner even has not produced any family settlement/family partition, any will or any Attorney in his favour. Therefore, petitioner alone is not competent or authorized to file the present petition.

xxx xxx xxx

(vii) The premises in question is not the sole available premises for the residence of the petitioner. As the petitioner has also alternative accommodation available in the city situated in Mohalla Katcha Tobba Hoshiapur.

(Emphasis applied)

The Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur vide the impugned order dated 14.08.2008 has declined leave to contest to the petitioners and as a sequel thereto, the eviction petition has been allowed and the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, giving rise to this revision petition.

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. The impugned orders and other relevant documents have also been perused.

Two-fold contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioners. Firstly, it is argued that no material/evidence has been placed on record by the respondent to show that he is owner of the demised premises and that too for a period of over 5 years before filing of the eviction petition which is one of the condition precedent for maintainability of an eviction petition u/s 13-B of the Act. Secondly, it is urged that the respondent is already owner in possession of an alternative residential house and therefore, there is no bona fide personal requirement for the demised premises.

In my considered view both the contentions are devoid of merits. As may be seen from para 2(iii) of their application for leave to contest, the petitioners themselves have candidly admitted the respondent to be a co-owner in the demised premises and one of the legal heirs of late Smt. Gian Wati Puri. It is well settled that the eviction petition u/s 13-B of the Act can be maintained even by a co-owner as has been ruled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, .

As regards the second plea, namely, availability of alternative accommodation, the respondent in the eviction petition has specifically disclosed that he is also co-owner in a property measuring 2-1/2 marla, situate in Mohalla Katcha Toba and which is a khola (dilapidated and old property which is not live-able/useable). It is well-settled that a landlord is the best judge of his needs. The petitioner-tenants cannot command or force the respondent to live in ruins and enjoy for themselves his liveable house.

Interpreting Sections 13-B read with the Section 18-A of the Act, the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa case (supra) has ruled that the need of the NRI- landlord shall be presumed to be genuine and bona fide unless rebutted by the tenant by leading strong and cogent material. The petitioners though asserted in their application for leave to contest that the respondent is in possession of alternative accommodation but no evidence like photographs, site plan or any certification of a liveable house from the Municipal authorities was appended with the said application. On the contrary, the respondent has specifically averred that the said property is measuring 2-1/2 marla only and that is completely in a dilapidated and unliveable condition. In these circumstances, when the Statute has given special right to the NRI landlord who is having his own accommodation and wants the same for his bona fide and personal necessity, the petitioner-tenants cannot dictate him as to how should he satisfy his bona fide requirements.

Suffice it to observe that the status of the respondent as a NRI is not seriously in dispute and the fact that he is already in India and wants to spend his remaining life in India justifies his bona fide need.

No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out.

Dismissed.