Harjit Kaur and anr. Harjit Kaur and v. Barjinder Pal Singh Gill and others Barjinder Pal Singh
Case Details
CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH R-8171-2014 (O&M) CR Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 Date of Decision: Harjit Kaur and anr. Harjit Kaur and VERSUS Barjinder Pal Singh Gill and others Barjinder Pal Singh ...Petitioners ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate, Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the respondents. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, By way of present revision petition challenge has been By way of present revision petition challenge has been By way of present revision petition challenge has been passed by learned Rent Controller, laid to an order dated 29.09.2014 passed by learned Rent Controller, passed by learned Rent Controller, laid to an order dated Chandigarh, Chandigarh, Chandigarh, Chandigarh, in an eviction petition in an eviction petition in an eviction petition in an eviction petition filed at filed at filed at filed at the the the the instance of instance of instance of instance of owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punjab respondents/co-owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punjab owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punjab respondents/co Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, Urban R ent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, whereby whereby an application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on behalf of the petitioners/tenants for seeking leave to contest, came to behalf of the petitioners/tenants for seeking leave to contest, came to behalf of the petitioners/tenants for seeking leave to contest, came to behalf of the petitioners/tenants for seeking leave to contest, came to order against be declined thereby resulting into passing of an eviction order against be declined thereby resulting into passing of an eviction be declined thereby resulting into passing of an eviction them. 2. The present dispute relates to the demised premises The present dispute relates to the demised premises The present dispute relates to the demised premises consisting of 800 sq. feet area (front portion consisting of of SCO 800 sq. feet area (front portion-ground floor) of SCO SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [2] No.83-84, Sector 17 D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, the 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, the D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, the respondents happen to be co-owners of the respondents happen to be co building in question i.e. owners of the building in question i.e. D, Chandigarh (hereinafter refered to as SCO No. 83-84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh (hereinafter refered to as D, Chandigarh (hereinafter refered to as SCO No. 83 the ‘building’). the ‘building’). Respondents No.1 to 5 let out the demised premises Respondents No.1 to 5 let out the demised premises Respondents No.1 to 5 let out the demised premises forming part of SCO No. 83-84, Sector 17 forming part of SCO No. 83 D, Chandigarh, (hereinafter 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘demised premises’) to referred to as ‘demised pre Harbhajan Singh whereas after mises’) to Harbhajan Singh whereas after widow and son, his death it was occupied by petitioners being the widow and son, his death it was occupied by petitioners being his death it was occupied by petitioners being . Besides it, the following other tenancies were also respectively. Besides it, the following other tenancies were also . Besides it, the following other tenancies were also respectively created by the respondent about different portions of the building in created by the respondent about different portions of the building in created by the respondent about different portions of the building in created by the respondent about different portions of the building in question:- question: (i) Area measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor Area measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor Area measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ per month; Rs.26215/- per month; ortion on the ground floor and basement (ii) Portion on the ground floor and basement ortion on the ground floor and basement (back side) rented out to Iqbal Singh; (back side) rented out to Iqbal Singh; (iii) Portion of 1st st and 2nd floor rented out to floor rented out to Canam Consultants Limited Consultants Limited; Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were (iv) Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were separately rented out some portion of 3rd separately rented out some portion of 3rd separately rented out some portion of 3rd floor. 3. Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been permanently settled in England and running successful business permanently settled in England and running successful business permanently settled in England and running successful business permanently settled in England and running successful business there, the respondents invoked Section 13 there, the respondents inv B of the 1949 Act, seeking oked Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, seeking ejectment of petitioners from the demises premises on the ground ejectment of petitioners from the demises premises on the ground ejectment of petitioners from the demises premises on the ground ejectment of petitioners from the demises premises on the ground that the same was now required for their personal use and that the same was now required for their personal use and that the same was now required for their personal use and that the same was now required for their personal use and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [3] occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the ntry and also for setting up of an office northern region of the country and also for setting up of an office ntry and also for setting up of an office northern region of the cou previous eviction petitions filed therein. It was also pleaded that the previous eviction petitions filed therein. It was also pleaded that the therein. It was also pleaded that the Section 13 of the 1949 Act against by the respondents while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act against Section 13 of the 1949 Act against by the respondents while invoking the petitioners regarding the demised premises were dismissed by the petitioners regarding the demised premises were dismissed by the petitioners regarding the demised premises were dismissed by the petitioners regarding the demised premises were dismissed by orities below and different revision petitions arising therefrom the authorities below and different revision petitions arising therefrom orities below and different revision petitions arising therefrom orities below and different revision petitions arising therefrom were pending before this Court. It was further pleaded that the were pending before this Court. It was further pleaded that the were pending before this Court. It was further pleaded that the were pending before this Court. It was further pleaded that the over the demised premises under possession of respondent No.6 over the demised premises under over the demised premises under possession of respondent No. franchise agreement dated 26.03.2009 with petitioner No.1 was franchise agreement dated 26.03.2009 with petitioner No.1 was franchise agreement dated 26.03.2009 with petitioner No.1 was franchise agreement dated 26.03.2009 with petitioner No.1 was uthorized. unauthorized. 4. Upon notice, the petitioners appeared before the Rent Upon notice, the petitioners appeared before the Rent Upon notice, the petitioners appeared before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under Section 18A (4) & Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under Section 18A (4) & Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under Section 18A (4) & Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under Section 18A (4) & (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, inter-alia alia on the following grounds:- (a) At least four eviction petitions filed under least four eviction petitions filed under least four eviction petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act by the respondents Section 13 of the 1949 Act by the respondents Section 13 of the 1949 Act by the respondents against petitioners qua the demised premises against petitioners qua the demised premises against petitioners qua the demised premises were dismissed by were dismissed by were dismissed by the Rent Controller, the Rent Controller, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh followed by dismissal of appeals Chandigarh followed by dismissal of appeals Chandigarh followed by dismissal of appeals arising therefrom and civil revisions we arising therefrom and civil revisions were therefore, the case for leave to pending, therefore, the case for leave to therefore, the case for leave to contest was made out in favour of petitioners- contest was made out in favour of petitioners contest was made out in favour of petitioners tenants. (b) Neither the other co owners of the building in Neither the other co-owners of the building in question were question were question were impleaded impleaded impleaded in in in the eviction the eviction the eviction petition; nor their consent was ever obtained petition; nor their consent was ever obtained petition; nor their consent was ever obtained for the purpose of filing the same; for the purpose SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [4] (c) Petitioners having purchased 1/ Petitioners having purchased 1/9th share in share in the building in question; tenancy came to an the building in question; tenancy came to an the building in question; tenancy came to an end and as such no eviction petition could end and as such no eviction petition could end and as such no eviction petition could especially when have been filed against them especially when have been filed against them final decree of partition qua the said building final decree of partition qua the said building final decree of partition qua the said building was passed was passed was passed in in in favour of all concerned favour of all concerned favour of all concerned including petitioner No.1; including petitioner No.1 Respondents, after withdrawal of petition (d) Respondents, after withdrawal of petition Respondents, after withdrawal of petition B of the 1949 Act created under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act created under Section 13 fresh fresh tenancy regarding some portion tenancy regarding some portion of in favour of Harjit ground floor of the building in favour of Harjit ground floor of the building renting out some Singh, besides having renting out some Singh, besides portion of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj portion of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj portion of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj Bala which reflected that their need qua the Bala which reflected that their need qua the Bala which reflected that their need qua the as no premises in question was not genuine as no premises in question was not genuine eviction petition was ever filed against them eviction petition was ever f iled against them. Besides it, the respondents were well settled Besides it, the respondents were well settled Besides it, the respondents were well settled in England and in England and in England and running running running their business their business their business successfully and thus never intended to settle successfully and thus never intended to settle successfully and thus never intended to settle in India. 5. A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to respondents, with the prayer for contest was filed on behalf of the respondents, with the prayer for respondents, with the prayer for contest was filed on behalf of the rejection of the same. rejection of the same. 6. Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated rejected the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of 29.09.2014 rejected the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of rejected the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of 29.09.2014 leave to contest followed by passing of an eviction order of even date leave to contest followed by passing of an eviction order of even date leave to contest followed by passing of an eviction order of even date leave to contest followed by passing of an eviction order of even date in terms of Section 13 B of the 1949 Act while directing them to terms of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act while directing them to B of the 1949 Act while directing them to SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [5] vacate the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present vacate the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present vacate the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present vacate the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present revision petition. revision petition. 7. passed by the Impugning the order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Impugning the order dated learned Rent Controller, learned Senior Counsel learned Rent Controller, n Mittal learned Senior Counsel Sh.Chetan Mittal representing the petitioner(s) made the following arguments representing made the following arguments:- (i) petitions Earlier eviction petitions filed at filed at the the instance of instance of respondents against the petitioners while invoking Section the petitioners while invoking Section declined by the Rent Controller, declined by the Rent Controller 13 of the 1949 Act were declined by the Rent Controller
Facts
affirmed by the Appellate Authority Chandigarh which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority affirmed by the Appellate Authority and revision petitions arising therefrom pending arising therefrom were pending adjudication before this Court, which thus, prima facie adjudication before this Court, which thus, prima facie, made a valid ground for grant of leave to in favour ground for grant of leave to contest in favour of petitioners. In this regard, reliance placed upon the regard, reliance was placed upon the decision rendered by this Court in case “R.D. Singh, decision rendered by this R.D. Singh, Principal, New Public School and another Versus Principal, New Public School and another Versus Principal, New Public School and another Versus Kirpal Singh Sethi”, reported as 2018 (1) RCR (Rent) ”, reported as 2018 (1) RCR (Rent) Hans Raj Versus Malkiat Kaur”, 616 and in case “Hans Raj Versus Malkiat Kaur Hans Raj Versus Malkiat Kaur 7. Learned Senior reported as 2009 (2) RCR (Rent) 667. Learned Senior reported as 2009 (2) RCR (Rent) 66 counsel also submitted that another eviction petition counsel also submitted that another eviction petition counsel also submitted that another eviction petition filed under Section against tenant Harjit Singh was earlier filed under Section against tenant Harjit Singh was B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was withdrawn vide 13-B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was withdrawn vide B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was withdrawn vide order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the learned Rent order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the learned Rent order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the learned Rent which clearly reflects that the need Controller, Chandigarh which clearly reflects that the need which clearly reflects that the need of respondents was not genuine. of respondents was not genuine (ii) (ii) SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document leave to contest was granted to similarly contest was granted to similarly situated tenant situated tenant – Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated 19.09.2016 and the proceedings in t he said eviction 09.2016 and the proceedings in the said eviction petition were at petition were at the the final stage; final stage; thus, thus, in such in such circumstances, the case of petitioners being identically stances, the case of petitioners being identically CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [6] placed, leave to contest contest was to be granted to them to them. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the ons regard was placed upon the decisions passed by this Court in case (i) “ rt in case (i) “Mukand Lal Bawa Mukand Lal Bawa Versus Satwant Singh”, report ed as 2009 (3) RCR ”, reported as 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 208; (ii) Civil Revision No. 6003 of 2014, titled Civil Revision No. 6003 of 2014, titled decided Jaswinder Singh Versus Bakhshish Singh” decided “Jaswinder Singh Versus Bakhshish Singh on 20.04.2017 and (iii) Civil Revision No. 6047 of 2013, Civil Revision No. 6047 of 2013,
Legal Reasoning
relevant to the observations made by this Court in the case of “Blue relevant to the observations made by this Court relevant to the observations made by this Court Blue , 2015 Sky Worldwide Travels and another Vs. Harvinder Singh”, 2015 Sky Worldwide Travels and another Vs. Harvinder Singh Sky Worldwide Travels and another Vs. Harvinder Singh (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted hereunder:- hereunder: “8. The contention that in respect of yet another The contention that in respect of yet another The contention that in respect of yet another tenement within the same complex of building, a tenement within the same complex of building, a tenement within the same complex of building, a tenant has obtained an order of stay before this tenant has obtained an order of stay before this tenant has obtained an order of stay before this court could hardly be a ground for me to deny court could hardly be a ground for me to deny court could hardly be a ground for me to deny consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A eks for eviction of several landlord which seeks for eviction of several landlord which se tenements may come by several obstructions and tenements may come by several obstructions and tenements may come by several obstructions and if he must wait for a period that all orders of if he must wait for a period that all orders of if he must wait for a period that all orders of eviction must be passed simultaneously, we must eviction must be passed simultaneously, we must eviction must be passed simultaneously, we must be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge urt takes its of how our courts function. Each court takes its of how our courts function. Each co own time and there is no particular strategy that own time and there is no particular strategy that own time and there is no particular strategy that we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and decided within any stipulated period. Section 13 decided within any stipulated period. Section 13-B edure and of the Act itself sets a different procedure and of the Act itself sets a different proc imposes a duty on a court to consider whether imposes a duty on a court to consider whether imposes a duty on a court to consider whether there is any case made by the respondent before there is any case made by the respondent before there is any case made by the respondent before SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [11] he is allowed to defend. This is to take note of an he is allowed to defend. This is to take note of an he is allowed to defend. This is to take note of an existing reality that no litigation in India comes to existing reality that no litigation in India comes to existing reality that no litigation in India comes to close immediately and a defence under whatever close immediately and a defence under whatever close immediately and a defence under whatever grounds and however grounds and however grounds and however fragile will assure fragile will assure fragile will assure to to to litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. B must be given a meaning, that If Section 13-B must be given a meaning, that B must be given a meaning, that meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter the ord landlord ord from claiming eviction. from claiming eviction. from claiming eviction. If If If the the the landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such ency to prevail over my own unusual contingency to prevail over my own unusual conting judgment.” 12. Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that eviction petition invoking on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that eviction petition invoking on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that eviction petition invoking on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that eviction petition invoking B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the Section 13-B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the Section 13 owners along with others qua their contesting respondents being co-owners along with others qua their owners along with others qua their contesting 18, sector 35, Chandigarh joint property forming part of SCO No. 317–18, sector 35, Chandigarh joint property forming part of SCO No. 317 joint property forming part of SCO No. 317 adjudicated upon on merits and rather, it as the same was never got adjudicated upon on merits and rather, it adjudicated upon on merits and rather, it as the same was never withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was was withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was sed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under passed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under sed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under sed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with Section 13-B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with Section 13 their other co-shares in the building bearing SCO No. 317 their other co 318, shares in the building bearing SCO No. 317–318, Sector 35 Chandigarh was not to be treated as bar for fil Sector 35 Chandigarh ing of be treated as bar for filing of present eviction petition by the respondents qua the building in present eviction petition by the respondents qua the building in present eviction petition by the respondents qua the building in present eviction petition by the respondents qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, namely, Jasmeet Kaur question as two of the respondents herein, namely, Jasmeet Kaur question as two of the respondents herein, namely, Jasmeet Kaur question as two of the respondents herein, namely, Jasmeet Kaur SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [12] owners with others did not even and Dalbir Singh Gill, being co-owners with others did not even owners with others did not even and Dalbir Singh Gill, being co achieve achieve the actual benefit of been handed over been handed over immediate immediate possession of the said property in terms of section 13 B of the 1949 possession of the said property in terms of section 13 B of the 1949 possession of the said property in terms of section 13 B of the 1949 possession of the said property in terms of section 13 B of the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two respondents, act and as such the special right available to the two respondents, act and as such the special right available to the two respondents, act and as such the special right available to the two respondents, namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill was never substantially namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill was never substantially namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill was never substantially namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill was never substantially attained by them; available to them once in their li attained by them fetime qua one available to them once in their lifetime qua one building; accordingly, the present eviction petition filed at their building; accordingly, the present eviction petition filed at their building; accordingly, the present eviction petition filed at their building; accordingly, the present eviction petition filed at their owners qua the instance, along with other respondents, being co-owners qua the instance, along with other respondents, being co instance, along with other respondents, being co fully demise premises forming part of building in question was fully demise premises forming part of building in question was demise premises forming part of building in question was maintainable as per law. maintainable as per law. 13. having preferred eviction petition Also, the respondents having preferred eviction petition having preferred eviction petition under Section 13 B of the 1949 Act against their other tenant, Section 13-B of the 1949 Act against their other tenant, B of the 1949 Act against their other tenant, namely, Harjit Singh; the same been withdrawn and namely, Harjit Singh filing of ; the same been withdrawn and the non-filing of eviction petitions against Paramjit Singh or Saroj Bala who were eviction petitions against Paramjit Singh or Saroj Bala eviction petitions against Paramjit Singh or Saroj Bala were in occupation of some portion of third floor, respectively, occupation of the building some portion of third floor, respectively, of the building in question was not to be treated as fatal to their cause as the in question was not to be treated as fatal to their cause as the in question was not to be treated as fatal to their cause as the in question was not to be treated as fatal to their cause as the were free to seek eviction from a part of building in respondents were free to seek eviction from a part of building in were free to seek eviction from a part of building in respondents question as per their suitability/ requirement and need. question as per their foresaid requirement and need. The aforesaid reasoning is even derived from the definition of building as envisaged reasoning is even derived from the definition of building as envisaged reasoning is even derived from the definition of building as envisaged reasoning is even derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the respondents term building also includes a part of it and therefore, the respondents term building also includes a part of it and therefore, the term building also includes a part of it and therefore, the were well within their right to seek eviction of were well within their right to see thereof k eviction of even a part thereof while invoking Section 13-B of the 1949 Act while invoking Section 13 requirement B of the 1949 Act; as per their requirement necessity with respect to the start of new business. and necessity with respect to the start of new business. necessity with respect to the start of new business. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [13] 14. From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it has also also been established on record that the / landlords ord that the respondents / landlords have been residing in England for the last many decades; running have been residing in England for the last many decades; running have been residing in England for the last many decades; running have been residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to invoke their special right of seeking immediate possession of the invoke their special right of seeking immediate possession of the invoke their special right of seeking immediate possession of the invoke their special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised premises as provided under Section 13 demised premises as pro of the 1949 Act. vided under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. The respondents being successful businessmen and intending to respondents being successful businessmen and intending to being successful businessmen and intending to was the same in the demised premises; their bonafide need was the same in the demised premises; their expand the same in the demised premises; their no substantial rebuttal to also established especially when there was no substantial rebuttal to also established especially when there also established especially when there for which burden was always upon them. for which burden was always upon them it by the petitioners/ tenants for which burden was always upon them it by the Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it was not at all essential for the respondents was not at all essential for the landowners to shift respondents – landowners to shift themselves in advance as the same was going to cost them, in terms themselves in advance as the same was going to cost them, in ter themselves in advance as the same was going to cost them, in ter themselves in advance as the same was going to cost them, in ter of their already well established business in England; causing serious of their already well established business in England; causing serious of their already well established business in England; causing serious of their already well established business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under Section 13 special right provided under n this regard, ection 13-B of 1949 Act. In this regard, ourt in case reliance can be placed upon the law laid down by this Court in case reliance can be placed upon the law reliance can be placed upon the law (Rent) Rakesh Sharma versus Harmesh Singh, 2015 (1) RCR (Rent) of Rakesh Sharma versus Harmesh Singh Rakesh Sharma versus Harmesh Singh judgment is reproduced 589. Relevant paragraph 10 of the this judgment is reproduced 589. Relevant paragraph 10 of the 589. Relevant paragraph 10 of the hereunder:- hereunder “10. The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the present case, the sale deed was executed wayback present case, the sale deed was executed wayback present case, the sale deed was executed wayback on 13.12.1991 and on the basis of the rent note, the on 13.12.1991 and on the basis of the rent note, the on 13.12.1991 and on the basis of the rent note, the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhabi respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhab respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhab SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [14] had never been denied, as such and the only ground had never been denied, as such and the only ground had never been denied, as such and the only ground taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. It has also been held that the return to India, as such, It has also been held that the return to India, as such, It has also been held that the return to India, as such, is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the and he can do business by staying in a foreign country and he can do business by staying in a foreign country that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of law that the leave to contest is only to be granted on law that the leave to contest is only to be granted on law that the leave to contest is only to be granted on the grounds raised in the application filed under the grounds raised in the application filed under the grounds raised in the application filed under A of the Act, which would show that triable Section 18-A of the Act, which would show that triable A of the Act, which would show that triable issues had been made out.” issues had been made 15. Further, the language of Section 13 B of the 1949 Act the language of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act respondents nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the respondents nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the owners were undoubtedly having right to seek eviction/ being co-owners were undoubtedly having right to seek eviction/ owners were undoubtedly having right to seek eviction/ being co on account of their immediate possession of the demised portion on account of their immediate possession of the demised immediate possession of the demised bona fide need. Reference in this bona fide need. regard can be made to the this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being Kumar’s case (supra). For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being Kumar’s case relevant is extracted hereunder:- relevant is extracted hereunder: petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not “26. The petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not the sole owner cannot sustain for the reason that a the sole owner cannot sustain for the reason that a the sole owner cannot sustain for the reason that a owner/ joint owner can also file eviction NRI co-owner/ joint owner can also file eviction owner/ joint owner can also file eviction petition under Section 13B of the Act.” petition under Section 13B of the Act.” ourt in Similar observations have been made by this Court in Similar observations have been made by this case of Paramjit Singh Vs. Satnam Singh case of ramjit Singh Vs. Satnam Singh, reported as 2024 (1) RCR (Rent) 264 relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted (Rent) 264 and relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted here under:- here under: SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document “9. ……In the instant case, the petitioner has ……In the instant case, the petitioner has ……In the instant case, the petitioner has CR-8171--2014 (O&M) [15] claimed to have purchased the land over which claimed to have purchased the land over which claimed to have purchased the land over which t along with his the demised shop has been built along with his the demised shop has been buil brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a partition had been effected between himself and partition had been effected between himself and partition had been effected between himself and his brother and the land over which the demised his brother and the land over which the demised his brother and the land over which the demised shop is constructed had fallen to his share shop is constructed had fallen to his share shop is constructed had fallen to his share which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. evision petitioner. Though the petitioner present revision petitioner. Though the petitioner evision petitioner. Though the petitioner has not produced any document on record to has not produced any document on record to has not produced any document on record to show that the partition of the land over which the show that the partition of the land over which the show that the partition of the land over which the demised shop has been constructed has been demised shop has been constructed has been demised shop has been constructed has been effected between himself and his brother, effected between himself and his brother, effected between himself and his brother, material however, even in the absence of any material however, even in the absence of any coming on record to this effect, this Court is coming on record to this effect, this Court is coming on record to this effect, this Court is inclined to hold that even on assuming the inclined to hold that even on assuming the inclined to hold that even on assuming the owner of the demised shop, petitioner to be co-owner of the demised shop, petitioner to be co still there was no bar for him to file the petition still there was no bar for him to file the petition still there was no bar for him to file the petition seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is equirement of law and even if a no such requirement of law and even if a equirement of law and even if a landlord is not proved to be the sole owner of landlord is not proved to be the sole owner of landlord is not proved to be the sole owner of the property in dispute, he can take up the the property in dispute, he can take up the the property in dispute, he can take up the B of the Act, proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act, proceedings under Section 13 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, upon Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed so. Reliance can also Apex Court had observed so. Reliance can also Apex Court had observed so. Reliance can also be placed upon Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh be placed upon Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of this Court had also observed so. As such, it is this Court had also observed so. As such, it is this Court had also observed so. As such, it is ised by the revision held that the argument as raised by the revision held that the argument as ra respondent that since the petitioner petitioner-respondent that since the petitioner respondent that since the petitioner was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the demised shop, therefore, he could not seek demised shop, therefore, he could not seek demised shop, therefore, he could not seek ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [16] rejected.” 16. Just because that the petitioners e petitioners purchased 1/9th share of share of from one of the building in question vide sale deed of the year 2000 from one of the building in question vide sale deed the building in question vide sale deed the co-owner owners, is not going to change status of being tenant qua not going to change their status of being tenant qua the demised premises having been the demised premises under the having been occupied by them under the placed on the decision rendered by respondents. Reference be placed on the decision rendered by placed on the decision rendered by respondents Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Parmod Kumar Jaiswal and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ Parmod Kumar Jaiswal and , 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 others Vs. Bibi Husan Bano, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 , 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 others Vs. Bibi Husan Ban thereof being relevant is reproduced hereunder:- thereof being relevant is reproduced hereunder: thereof being relevant is reproduced hereunder: “21. In T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra) this a Reddy and others (supra) this Court considered the question in detail in the Court considered the question in detail in the Court considered the question in detail in the context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that of Property Act and came to the conclusion that of Property Act and came to the conclusion that there is no determination of the lease in terms of there is no determination of the lease in terms of there is no determination of the lease in terms of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act here a tenant acquires only partial ownership where a tenant acquires only partial ownership here a tenant acquires only partial ownership interest. After referring to the decision of the interest. After referring to the decision of the interest. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council, the decision of this Court and Privy Council, the decision of this Court and Privy Council, the decision of this Court and other relevant materials, this Court held that the other relevant materials, this Court held that the other relevant materials, this Court held that the lease cannot be said to have been determined lease cannot be said to have been determined lease cannot be said to have been determined s the interests of the lessee, by merger so long as the interests of the lessee, by merger so long a the lesser estate and that of the owner, the the lesser estate and that of the owner, the the lesser estate and that of the owner, the larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. This Court also noticed that merger was largely This Court also noticed that merger was largely This Court also noticed that merger was largely a question of intention dependant on certain a question of intention dependant on certain a question of intention dependant on certain me circumstances and the courts will presume circumstances and the courts will presu against it when it operates to the disadvantage against it when it operates to the disadvantage against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party. With respect we find that the position of a party. With respect we find that the position of a party. With respect we find that the position has been correctly stated in T. Lakshmipathi has been correctly stated in T. Lakshmipathi SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [17] and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra). The subsequent decision (supra). The subsequent decision in in India India Co. and Others v. Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and Others v. Umbrella Manufacturing Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri (supra) also Agarwalla (Smt.) and Others (supra) also Agarwalla (Smt.) and Others proceeds on the same lines and supports the proceeds on the same lines and supports the proceeds on the same lines and supports the above position. We approve the principle of law above position. We approve the principle of law above position. We approve the principle of law stated in T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra).” Nithyananda Reddy a 17. Moreover, even as per the final decree of partition which Moreover, even as per the final decree of partition which Moreover, even as per the final decree of partition which is part of the records of bunch of these four revision petitions, the is part of the records of bunch of these four revision petitions, the is part of the records of bunch of these four revision petitions, the is part of the records of bunch of these four revision petitions, the be disturbed or parted with and the rights of possession was not to be disturbed or parted with and the rights of be disturbed or parted with and the rights of possession was not the co-owners as per their entitle ment were to be settled upon putting owners as per their entitlement were to be settled upon putting ment were to be settled upon putting Moreover, respondents No.2 to 5 were held the shares of auction. Moreover, respondents No.2 to 5 were held Moreover, respondents No.2 to 5 were held the shares of auction. entitled for 83.3328% share of the entire building in question, entitled for 83.3328% share of the entire building in question, entitled for 83.3328% share of the entire building in question, entitled for 83.3328% share of the entire building in question, including the shares of deceased Sh.S.S.Gill and petitioners were including the shares of deceased Sh.S.S.Gill and petitioners were including the shares of deceased Sh.S.S.Gill and petitioners were including the shares of deceased Sh.S.S.Gill and petitioners were held entitled for 1% share only. held entitled for 1% sh 18. Moreover, the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners Moreover, the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners Moreover, the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners do not come to their rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in do not come to their rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in do not come to their rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in do not come to their rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in the cases of Kirpal Singh Sethi’s case (supra) and the cases of case case (supra) and Hans Raj’s case , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the (supra), it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction has been brought on record by the competent Court of jurisdiction has been brought on record by the competent Court of jurisdiction has been brought on record by the competent Court of jurisdiction has been brought on record by the necessity of petitioners so as to establish that the plea of bona fide necessity of petitioners so as to establish that the plea of petitioners so as to establish that the plea of y of their the property in question as set up by the respondents in any of their the property in question as set up by the respondents in an the property in question as set up by the respondents in an petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on case merits. Besides it, the decisions made in Mukand Lal Bawa’s case merits. Besides it, the decisions made in merits. Besides it, the decisions made in SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [18] (supra), Smt. Kaushalya Rani’s (supra), case (supra) and Jaswinder Jaswinder Singh’s ioners in view of case (supra) again would not help the petitioners in view of case (supra) again would not help the petit the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of Ved the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of Ved , 2024 (2) RCR Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal, 2024 (2) RCR Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being relevant is extracted (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being relevant is extracted (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being relevant is extracted (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being relevant is extracted hereunder:- hereunder: “28. Close to the same, very true, as p ointed out that Close to the same, very true, as pointed out that 5 other shops, relating to which, there are 4-5 other shops, relating to which, 5 other shops, relating to which, undisputedly ejectment petitions have been undisputedly ejectment petitions have been undisputedly ejectment petitions have been of filed. It is submitted that as per Section 13B of filed. It is submitted that as per the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the petitions under Section 13B , qua all the shops in Section 13B, qua all the shops in possession of tenants, is not maintainable. possession of tenants, is not maintainable. possession of tenants, is not maintainable. wever, However, wever, the aforesaid submission the aforesaid submission the aforesaid submission is not is not is not tenable. Suffice tenable. Suffice tenable. Suffice to make reference to make reference to make reference to to to the the the decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal 2014, Dua vs. Shander Singh, in CR-4286-2014, Dua vs. Shander Singh, in CR decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held as also that 'building' included entire building, as also that 'building' included entire building, part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded that where the premises in possession of that where the premises in possession of that where the premises in possession of various tenants are part of same building, various tenants are part of same building, various tenants are part of same building, therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' and the landowner is entitled to maintain various and the landowner is entitled to maintain various and the landowner is entitled to maintain various ed against the various tenants of the petitions filed against the various tenants of the ed against the various tenants of the same building.” 19. Even otherwise, the petitioners in the given facts petitioners-tenants in the given facts neness of the need expressed by the has failed to rebut the genuineness of the need expressed by the neness of the need expressed by the has failed to rebut the genui SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [19] application, for seeking leave to respondents – landlords in their application, for seeking leave to application, for seeking leave to respondents est and contest and thus thus the same needs the same needs to be rejected. to be rejected. In such In such may be relevant to place reliance upon the circumstances, it may be relevant to place reliance upon the may be relevant to place reliance upon the circumstances, it judgment of Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini judgment of , 2005 (2) RCR Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, 2005 (2) RCR (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted hereunder:- hereunder: The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the “20. The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI landlord is reflected from the summary procedure landlord is reflected from the summary procedure landlord is reflected from the summary procedure A of the Act of 1949 prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act of 1949 prescribed under Section 18 he matter on which requires the Controller to take up the matter on which requires the Controller to take up t day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an day-to-day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an application. The Legislature wants the decision of the application. The Legislature wants the decision of the application. The Legislature wants the decision of the Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction, it is or second appeal against the order of eviction, it is or second appeal against the order of eviction, it is hich can exercise the power of only the High Court which can exercise the power of only the High Court w consideration of the case, whether the decision of the consideration of the case, whether the decision of the consideration of the case, whether the decision of the Controller is in accordance with law. Section 13- Controller is in accordance with law. Section 13 -B gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and owner of the who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and owner of the who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and owner of the r five years before action is commenced. premises for five years before action is commenced. r five years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for s. (3) of ejectment only once during his life time. Sub-s. (3) of ejectment only once during his life time. Sub Bimposes a restriction that he shall not Section 13-Bimposes a restriction that he shall not Bimposes a restriction that he shall not ut transfer through sale or any other means or lease out transfer through sale or any other means or lease o the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession of the five years from the date of taking possession of the five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any B, of the conditions of sub-section (3) of Section 13-B, of the conditions of sub estoration of possession the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession the tenant is given a right of r B) of of the said building. Under sub-section (2-B) of of the said building. Under sub SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171--2014 (O&M) [20] Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he keep it for a continuous period of three months and he keep it for a continuous period of three months and he is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part of is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part of is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part of such building to any other person except the evicted other person except the evicted tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term which can be extended upto six months. These which can be extended upto six months. These which can be extended upto six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong of the landlord is genuine. presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine. presumption that the need Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five years Virtually conditions and restrictions imposed on years Virtually conditions and restrictions imposed on years Virtually conditions and restrictions imposed on landlord makes it improbable for any NRI the NRI landlord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous landlord probably, under this Section, would approach landlord probably, under this Section, would approach landlord probably, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the rous conditions onerous conditions rous conditions imposed on him by which imposed on him by which imposed on him by which practically he is deprived of his right in the property not practically he is deprived of his right in the property not practically he is deprived of his right in the property not only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of the property by sale or any other manner. The the property by sale or any other manner. The the property by sale or any other manner. The restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord proach when his would approach the court he would approach when his would approach the court he would ap course, subject need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of-course, subject need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of Section 13-B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of urt shall presume that landlord's the tenant, the Court shall presume that landlord's urt shall presume that landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [21] entitle the tenant from proving But this would not dis- entitle the tenant from proving But this would not dis that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to supported by documentary evidence, if available, to supported by documentary evidence, if available, to that the support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the support his plea in the affidavit itself so Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption presumption in in the the landlords' landlords' favour favour that his that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and requirement of occupation of the premises is real and requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine. 21. We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's need if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's need if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's need ide and genuiness is permitted, regarding the bona fide and genuiness is permitted, regarding the bona fide and genuiness is permitted, the the the legislative legislative legislative intent of intent of intent of immediate delivery of immediate delivery of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them possession of the accommodation owned by them possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained down that legislative intent has to be ascertained down that legislative intent has to be ascertained ge used in the enactment according to plain language used in the enactment according to plain langua and basic rule of statutory construction should be and basic rule of statutory construction should be and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a preferred which advances the purpose and object of a preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Verghese or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Verghese or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Verghese icer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 icer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of Income- Tax, Madras, AIR (1956) SC 604. Tax, Madras, AIR (1956) SC 604.” SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [22] The Hon’ble Apex Court in a latest decision of Mukesh The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukesh Kumar versus S.Kuldeep Singh, 2023 Kumar versus S.Kuldeep Singh 657, has 2023 (2) RCR (Rent) 657, has again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts Para as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon tenant. Para as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon is reproduced of the aforementioned judgment being relevant, is reproduced of the aforementioned judgment No.16 of the aforementioned judgment hereunder: under:- “16. From the scheme of things under Section 13 B From the scheme of things under Section 13-B A, we are of the view that read with Section 18-A, we are of the view that read with Section 18 B satisfies the the owner invoking Section 13-B satisfies the the owner invoking Section 13 ingredients of the said Section and the onus is ingredients of the said Section and the onus is ingredients of the said Section and the onus is lose such facts as on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as on Mukesh Kumar to disc would disentitle summary eviction under would disentitle summary eviction under would disentitle summary eviction under B, which, in our considered view, Section 13-B, which, in our considered view, B, which, in our considered view, Mukesh Kumar failed to do.” Mukesh Kumar failed to do.” 20. In view of In view of In view of the discussion made hereinabove and the discussion made hereinabove and the discussion made hereinabove and especially the judgments relied upon by the petitioners/ tenants been especially the judgments relied upon by the petitioners/ tenants been especially the judgments relied upon by the petitioners/ tenants been especially the judgments relied upon by the petitioners/ tenants been in terms of the legal not applicable to the facts of the present case; in terms of the legal not applicable to the facts of the present case not applicable to the facts of the present case precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides even precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides even precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides even precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides even passed finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated 29.09.2014 passed finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated t declining the by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, about declining the by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, the present revision prayer made by petitioners for leave to contest, the present revision prayer made by petitioners for leave to contest, prayer made by petitioners for leave to contest, Resultantly, the petitioners/ tenants are petition is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the petitioners/ tenants are Resultantly, the petitioners/ tenants are petition is hereby dismissed. directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises in favour of the respondents/ landlords in favour of the as directed by the learned andlords as directed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. Rent Controller, Chandigarh 21. With respect to grant of mesne profits, learned counsel for mesne profits, learned counsel for SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [23] the respondents relied upon a lease deed dated 15.03.2013 the respondents relied upon a lease deed dated 15.03.2013 the respondents relied upon a lease deed dated 15.03.2013 the respondents relied upon a lease deed dated 15.03.2013 E, Chandigarh, measuring 2000 pertaining to SCO No. 13, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, measuring 2000 E, Chandigarh, measuring 2000 pertaining to SCO No. 13, Sector 17 . ft. on ground floor and 380 sq. ft. on mezzanine floor which was sq. ft. on ground floor and 380 sq. ft. on mezzanine floor which was . ft. on ground floor and 380 sq. ft. on mezzanine floor which was . ft. on ground floor and 380 sq. ft. on mezzanine floor which was leased out for a period of 09 years as per the following terms and leased out for a period of 09 years as per the following terms and leased out for a period of 09 years as per the following terms and leased out for a period of 09 years as per the following terms and conditions, with respect to the rate of rent:- conditions, with respect to the rate of rent: conditions, with respect to the rate of rent: PERIOD a) 23.04.2013 to 22.04.2016 23.04.2013 to 22.04.2016 b) 23.04.2016 to 22.04.2019 23.04.2016 to 22.04.2019 c) 23.04.2019 to 22.04.2022 23.04.2019 to 22.04.2022 OF OF RATE RATE RENT(PER MONTH) RENT(PER MONTH) @ 1660000/- .697.48 per sq. ft. Rs.697.48 per sq. ft. 1909000/- Rs.802.10 per sq. ft. Rs.802.10 per sq. ft. 2195350/- Rs.922.42 per sq. ft. Rs.922.42 per sq. ft. @ @ In the present case, the dispute relates to an area In the present case, the dispute relates to an area In the present case, the dispute relates to an area of SCO No. 83- measuring 800 sq. ft. forming part of the ground floor of SCO No. 83 measuring 800 sq. ft. forming part of the ground floor measuring 800 sq. ft. forming part of the ground floor D, Chandigarh which is situated in close proximity to D, Chandigarh which is situated in close proximity 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh which is situated in close proximity 84, Sector 17 the premises forming part of aforementioned lease deed dated the premises forming part of aforementioned lease deed dated the premises forming part of aforementioned lease deed dated the premises forming part of aforementioned lease deed dated 15.03.2013, thereby having similar potential 15.03.2013, thereby rental having similar potential, locational and rental value, as such relying upon the as such relying upon the said 15.03.2013, said lease deed dated 15.03.2013, the mesne profits from the date of eviction of petitioner i.e. w.e.f. mesne profits from the date of eviction of petitioner i.e. w.e.f. profits from the date of eviction of petitioner i.e. w.e.f. per sq. ft. 29.09.2014 are hereby assessed at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq. ft. 29.09.2014 are hereby assessed at the rate of Rs.700/ 29.09.2014 are hereby assessed at the rate of Rs.700/ Though in the lease deed dated 15.03.2013, some appreciation after Though in the lease deed dated 15.03.2013, some appreciation after Though in the lease deed dated 15.03.2013, some appreciation after Though in the lease deed dated 15.03.2013, some appreciation after , however, considering the fact that every 03 years has been agreed, however, considering the fact that , however, considering the fact that every 03 years has been profits the Court has to be reasonable, as while assessing mesne profits the Court has to be reasonable, as profits the Court has to be reasonable, as while assessing such a uniform rate of Rs.700/- per sq. ft. such a uniform rate of Rs.700/ assessed towards per sq. ft. is being assessed towards profits. mesne profits. The lease deed commencing from 01.04.2010 relied upon The lease deed commencing from 01.04.2010 relied upon The lease deed commencing from 01.04.2010 relied upon SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [24] by the petitioners though pertain petitioners though pertains to SCO Nos.61 to SCO Nos.61-62-63, Sector 17 63, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, however, the same being not in close proximity in terms Chandigarh, however, the same being not in close proximity in terms Chandigarh, however, the same being not in close proximity in terms Chandigarh, however, the same being not in close proximity in terms of period of eviction in the present case which is September 2014, of period of eviction in the present case which is September 2014, of period of eviction in the present case which is September 2014, of period of eviction in the present case which is September 2014, thus is not being relied upon. thus is not being relied upon. Accordingly, the application bearing 2015 ation bearing CM-5350-CII-2015 profits is allowed filed on behalf of the respondents for grant of mesne profits is allowed filed on behalf of the respondents for grant of filed on behalf of the respondents for grant of profits at the rate of Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the by fixing the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the profits at the rate of Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the by fixing the date of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. date of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. date of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. date of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. till the date of handing over of the vacant possession of 29.09.2014 till the date of handing over of the vacant possession of till the date of handing over of the vacant possession of 29.09.2014 profits be cleared within the demised premises. The arrears of mesne profits be cleared within the demised premises. The arrears of the demised premises. The arrears of the date of receipt of certified copy of the a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the the date of receipt of certified copy of the a period of 0 order. 22. also stand Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall
Arguments
titled “Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh Kahlon” decided on dated 05.04.201 dated 05.04.2017. (iii) rented out some other portions of ground ) Respondents rented out some other portions of ground rented out some other portions of ground and floor and top floor to Harjit Singh, Paramjit Singh and floor and top floor to Harjit Singh Saroj Bala, as such their need not established their bona fide need not established particularly when they had not returned back to India so particularly when they had not returned back to India so particularly when they had not returned back to India so far and were running far and were running far and were running their successful business their successful business their successful business in in in England. v) Around 1/9th share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in (iv) question was purchased by the petitioner from other co- purchased by the petitioners from other co owners vide sale deed of therefore, of the year 2000 and therefore, petitioners having become co therein having become co-sharers/co-owner therein could not be evicted from the demised premises. It was evicted from the demised premises. It was owners of the also submitted that neither all the other co-owners of the also submitted that neither all the other co n were impleaded as parties; nor their building in question were impleaded as parties; nor their n were impleaded as parties; nor their consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. reliminary decree dated 19.05.2016 followed by the reliminary decree dated 19.05.2016 followed by the (v) Preliminary decree dated 19.05.2016 followed by the (v) was passed by the Civil final decree dated 10.10.2018 was passed by the Civil final decree dated 10.10.2018 Court with regard to the building in a suit for building in question in a suit for owner partition filed at the instance of one of the co-owner partition filed at the instance of one of the co Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at the Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at the Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at the instance of respondents was liable to be dismissed. instance of respondents was liable to be dismissed SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [7] (vi) Another eviction petition under Section 13 (vi) B of the 1949 under Section 13-B of the 1949 s filed at the instance of two of the respondents Act was filed at the instance of two of the respondents s filed at the instance of two of the respondents being co-sharers of another premises / SCO Nos. 317, sharers of another premises / SCO Nos. 317, ndigarh, thus eviction petition under 318, Sector-35B, Chandigarh, thus eviction petition under ndigarh, thus eviction petition under of the 1949 Act for the same provision i.e. Section 13-B of the 1949 Act for the same provision i.e. Section 13 ty qua the demised premises at their the bona fide necessity qua the demised premises at their ty qua the demised premises at their instance was not maintainable as under the statutory not maintainable as under the statutory provisions of Section 13- B of 1949 Act an owner could -B of 1949 Act an owner could apply only once for seeking eviction of one such building apply only once for seeking eviction of one such building apply only once for seeking eviction of one such building ife time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the during his life time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the ife time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present eviction petition qua the demised premises of the present eviction petition qua the demised premises of the present eviction petition qua the demised premises of the building in question was not maintainable. building in question was not maintainable. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the premises in question was required for the personal submits that the premises in question was required for the personal submits that the premises in question was required for the personal submits that the premises in question was required for the personal bona fide need of the respondents as they were running successful fide need of the respondents as they were running successful need of the respondents as they were running successful business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade ts trade in the northern region of the country. With regard to Garments trade in the northern region of the country. With regard to ts trade in the northern region of the country. With regard to ts trade in the northern region of the country. With regard to the filing and withdrawal of eviction petition against Harjit Singh i.e. a filing and withdrawal of eviction petition against Harjit Singh i.e. a eviction petition against Harjit Singh i.e. a tenant over an area measuring 17’ x 28 ‘ of the ground floor (front tenant over an area measuring 17’ x 28 ‘ of the ground floor (front tenant over an area measuring 17’ x 28 ‘ of the ground floor (front tenant over an area measuring 17’ x 28 ‘ of the ground floor (front ments and suitability portion), it was submitted that as per the requirements and suitability portion), it was submitted that as per the require portion), it was submitted that as per the require of respondents, eviction was sought for against the petitioners qua of respondents, eviction was sought for against the petitioners qua of respondents, eviction was sought for against the petitioners qua of respondents, eviction was sought for against the petitioners qua first floor and the second floor and also separate eviction petitions first floor and the second floor and also separate eviction petitions first floor and the second floor and also separate eviction petitions first floor and the second floor and also separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, namely, Iqbal Singh from ground were filed against other tenants, namely, Iqbal Singh from ground were filed against other tenants, namely, Iqbal Singh from ground were filed against other tenants, namely, Iqbal Singh from ground on) as well as Harjit Kaur from ground floor and basement (back portion) as well as Harjit Kaur from ground on) as well as Harjit Kaur from ground floor and basement (back porti floor (front portion). Further, it was specifically denied that any floor (front portion). Further, it was specifically denied that any floor (front portion). Further, it was specifically denied that any floor (front portion). Further, it was specifically denied that any SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [8] portion of building in question was ever sold by the respondents portion of building in question was ever sold by the respondents portion of building in question was ever sold by the respondents portion of building in question was ever sold by the respondents being its co-owners. being its co 8.1 With regard to maintainability of the eviction petition on With regard to maintainability of the eviction petition o With regard to maintainability of the eviction petition o owners was obtained by the ground that no objection from other co-owners was obtained by the ground that no objection from other co the ground that no objection from other co the respondents, it was submitted that the demised premises was the respondents, it was submitted that the demised premises was the respondents, it was submitted that the demised premises was the respondents, it was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of petitioners by the respondents being its co- rented out in favour of petitioners by the respondents being its co rented out in favour of petitioners by the respondents being its co rented out in favour of petitioners by the respondents being its co the same for owners and thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of the same for owners and thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of owners and thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of their personal use and occupation while invoking Section 13 B of the their personal use and occupation while invoking Section 13 B of the their personal use and occupation while invoking Section 13 B of the their personal use and occupation while invoking Section 13 B of the owners and 1949 Act without even obtaining the consent of other co-owners and 1949 Act without even obtaining the consent of other co 1949 Act without even obtaining the consent of other co mere fact that the petitioners had purchased some share of the mere fact that the petitioners had purchased some share of the mere fact that the petitioners had purchased some share of the mere fact that the petitioners had purchased some share of the building in question from another co-owner w building in question from another co as not going to change owner was not going to change their status of being tenants under respondents. their status of being tenants under respondents. their status of being tenants under respondents. 8.2. With respect to the other eviction petitions filed at the With respect to the other eviction petitions filed at the With respect to the other eviction petitions filed at the instance of two of the respondents against their tenants while instance of two of the respondents against their tenants while instance of two of the respondents against their tenants while instance of two of the respondents against their tenants while invoking Section 13 or Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, it w invoking Section 13 or Section 13 as submitted B of the 1949 Act, it was submitted that the same were based on different cause of action. that the same were based on different cause of action that the same were based on different cause of action 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book(s), but unable to find substance in the through the paper-book(s), but unable to find substance in the book(s), but unable to find substance in the through the paper submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 10. Mere fact that the previous eviction petition preferred at the previous eviction petitions preferred at the instance of respondents against the instance of the petitioners on various respondents against the petitioners on various grounds while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act grounds dismissed by while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act were dismissed by not the Rent Controller besides even dismissal of first appeals were not the Rent Controller besides even dismissal of first appeal the Rent Controller besides even dismissal of first appeal create any cause in favour of petitioners in the present going to create any cause in favour of petitioners in the present create any cause in favour of petitioners in the present going to SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [9] under proceedings which were arising out of an eviction petition filed under proceedings which were arising out of an eviction petition filed proceedings which were arising out of an eviction petition filed B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred Section 13-B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred Section 13 upon the respondents the respondents being the co-owner question owners of the building in question to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (Dead) through LRs, reported as 2010 (2) Rent L Kaur (Dead) through LRs R 74 and , reported as 2010 (2) Rent LR 74 and para 48 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder:- para 48 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder: para 48 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder: The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction petition “48. The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction petition The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction petition landlady in default, in my view, filed by the respondent-landlady in default, in my view, filed by the respondent has no material bearing at all on the merits of the has no material bearing at all on the merits of the has no material bearing at all on the merits of the led by her under Section 13B of the eviction petitions filed by her under Section 13B of the led by her under Section 13B of the Resident Act which confers a special right on the Non-Resident Act which confers a special right on the Non owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily Indian-owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the by such NRI-landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the ion petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither ion petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither any issue as to whether or not the demised premises any issue as to whether or not the demised premises any issue as to whether or not the demised premises was required by the respondent for her personal use was required by the respondent for her personal use was required by the respondent for her personal use and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. ts, Even the dismissal of an eviction petition on merits, Even the dismissal of an eviction petition on meri filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under disclosure of an Section 138 of the Act. The non-disclosure of an Section 138 of the Act. The non irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the landlady.” respondent-landlady.” 11. With respect to the plea on behalf of petitioners tenants ect to the plea on behalf of petitioners – tenants about grant of leave to contest in favour of one of the other tenants, about grant of leave to contest in favour of one of the other tenants, about grant of leave to contest in favour of one of the other tenants, about grant of leave to contest in favour of one of the other tenants, namely, be pointed out here that the said order Iqbal Singh, it may be pointed out here that the said order be pointed out here that the said order SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [10] Chandigarh was dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh was dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller Civil ailed at the instance of respondents–landlords by way of Civil ailed at the instance of respondent assailed at the instance of respondent 2956 of 2018 and the same has been allowed in favour Revision No. 2956 of 2018 and the same has been allowed in favour 2956 of 2018 and the same has been allowed in favour Revision No. of respondents vide order of even date of respondents , thereby declining the grant of vide order of even date, thereby declining the grant of eviction leave to contest to Iqbal Singh followed by an order of eviction leave to contest to Iqbal Singh followed by an order of leave to contest to Iqbal Singh followed by an order of passed against him in terms of Section 13 passed against him in terms of ection 13–B of the 1949 A Act. Accordingly, the petitioners –tenants cannot Accordingly, the petitioners draw any tenants cannot be permitted to draw any Moreover, reference at this stage would be benefit out of the same. Moreover, reference at this stage would be Moreover, reference at this stage would be benefit out of the same.
Decision
disposed of. disposed of. .2025 26.05.2025 sanjay ( HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? Yes/No Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document