Parshotam Monga v. Major Satnam Singh

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. A plea filed by the respondent-landlord for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 28.8.2009. The grant of ejectment order came about on a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The respondent-landlord had averred that he is an NRI within the ambit of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. In the course of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner has been proved to be an NRI within the ambit of above Clause and he has been able to further prove that the petitioner-tenant deserves to be ejected from the tenanted premises. The plea raised by the petitioner-tenant, in the present revision petition, is to the effect that respondent-landlord had not Civil Revision No. 6139 of 2009 -2- **** been able to prove that he requires the tenanted premises for personal bonafide necessity. In support of the above view, it is argued that there is evidence on the file to prove that yet another tenanted premises belonging to the landlord was under the occupation of R.P.S.Bains who vacated the same and shifted overseas. It is also vehemently argued that the respondent-landlord could not be said to be an NRI in view of his own statement that all his children are settled in Amsterdam. It was, then, argued on behalf of the petitioner that the resort had by the respondent-landlord to the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act is malafide on the face of it in view of the fact that he has been making endeavour after endeavour to get the petitioner tenant ejected, on one pretext or the other. In support thereof, it was pointed out that the respondent-landlord had filed six rent petitions (Nos. 25 of 19.1.1996, 19 of 28.1.1997, 45 of 2.3.1998, 34 of 16.2.1999, 83 of 7.1.2005 and 44 of 23.8.2007) against the tenant – petitioner. The plea raised is completely denuded of merit. Rent Petition No.25 of 19.1.1996 had been filed by the respondent- landlord to claim arrears of rent from 1.6.1992 to 21.8.1995. The second rent petition No.19 of 28.1.1987 had been filed by the respondent-landlord to claim arrears of rent from 1.4.1996 to

31.3.1997. The third rent petition No.45 of 2.3.1998 had been filed by the respondent-landlord to claim arrears of rent from 1.4.1997 to

31.3.1998. Likewise, fourth rent petition No.34 of 16.2.1999 had been Civil Revision No. 6139 of 2009 -3- **** filed by the respondent-landlord to claim arrears of rent from

1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999. In a similar vein, 6th rent petition No.44 of

23.8.2007 had been filed by the respondent-landlord to claim arrears of rent from 1.4.1999 onwards. The proceedings in rent petition Nos. 19 of 28.1.1997, 45 of 2.3.1998, 34 of 16.2.1999 were adjourned sine-die on the own plea of the respondent-landlord. Insofar the rent application No.44 of 23.8.2007 is concerned, it came to be allowed and allowance thereof is under challenge in Civil Revision6753 of 2009 pending in this Court. It is rent application No.83 of 7.1.2005 which is under adjudication at the hands of this Court. It cannot, thus, be said with any sense of justification of that respondent-landlord has been filing repeated and vexatious ejectment applications against the petitioner-tenant on one pretext or the other. Infact, all those petitions were filed to recover the arrears of rent (for different period of times). It is only the present petition which had been filed on the authority of provisions of 13-B of the Act. The filing of petitions to claim arrears of rent do not by any standard of interpretation, disable an NRI-landlord from filing a petition under Section 13-B of the Act to claim ejectment of the tenant on expeditious basis. The plea shall stand negatived accordingly. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that respondent-landlord has not been able to prove that he is an NRI deserves to be negatived, On point of fact, it may be pointed out that the plea raised in the context was that the respondent-landlord is not proved on record to have any source of income in Australia and, thus, his only intention is to obtain ejectment is to encash the assets Civil Revision No. 6139 of 2009 -4- **** which he holds in India. It is in the statement of none else or other than the respondent-landlord himself that he migrated to Australia on

28.12.1991 “with the status of permanent resident of Australia with the intention to settle there permanently.” In support of the relevant averment, he placed on record Ex. A-6, an attested copy of the Australian citizenship certificate which purports to have been issued by the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, who is competent authority to issue that certification on behalf of the Government of Australia. He also proved Ex. A-8, a copy of his driving licence issued by the competent authority (New South Wales, Australia). On the date the copy was proved, he had also brought along his original driving licence. He also proved Ex. A-9, an attested copy of identity card issued by the NRI Sabha (Punjab) Jalandhar in his favour. On the date Ex. A-9 was proved, the respondent-landlord had brought along the original certification aforementioned. He also proved the passport held by him and his wife and testified that ever since his migration to Australia he had visited India seven times during the period 28.12.1991 to 5.11.2004. In support of that averment, he also testified that the passports held by him and his wife contain visit entries to the above effect. In that view of things, it is illogical for the petitioner-tenant to aver that respondent-landlord is not an NRI within the ambit of provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. There is also no logic in the plea that the respondent – landlord is inclined to encash the assets in India. It is, then, argued that there already is sufficient Civil Revision No. 6139 of 2009 -5- **** accommodation on the first floor of the disputed premises which is under the occupation of respondent-landlord which he and his wife can use for residence. The plea raised is oblivious of the statement made by the respondent-landlord on oath to the effect that he and his wife find it difficult to climb the stairs on account of advanced age. There is, thus, nothing unnatural on the part of the landlord desiring occupation of the tenanted premises on the ground floor on account of age-related handicap. This observation also takes care of the premises vacated by RPS Bains aforementioned. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 10, 2010 Pka (S.D.Anand) Judge