Civil Revision No.1214 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1214 of 2008 Date of Decision:30.10.2009 M/s Trehan Auto Parts .....Petitioner versus Kuldip Singh Sahi .....Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar. Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Prachi Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent. **** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. 1. Petitioner-tenant-M/s Trehan Auto Parts (hereinafter to be referred as the tenant) has directed the present revision petition against the impugned order dated 22.01.2008 vide which the Rent Controller has dismissed its application under Section 14 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) . 2. The facts barely needed relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record are that originally Kuldip Singh-respondent-landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the landlord) being NRI filed the ejectment petition against the tenant for eviction from the demised premises in dispute invoking the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities, the tenant was summoned who filed an application for leave to defend the ejectment petition which is stated to be still pending. At the same time, the tenant Civil Revision No.1214 of 2008 2 also filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act for summarily rejection of the ejectment petition, inter alia, pleading that the landlord earlier also filed a case bearing No.28 of 20.10.2000 titled as Kuldip Singh Versus Surinder Kumar against the tenant regarding the property in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent, subletting and also on the ground of personal necessity. The said case was contested by the tenant and ultimately the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.12.2005. According to the tenant that as the matter in dispute in the present case has already been finally decided in the earlier petition, therefore, the present petition under Section 13-B of the Act is not maintainable. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the tenant filed the petition under Section 14 of the Act for summarily rejection of the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act as well. 4. The landlord contested the claim of the tenant by filing reply in which it was pleaded that as the earlier petition was filed by the landlord under different provisions of law and now the present petition has been filed by him under Section 13-B of the Act, therefore, the adjudication of earlier petition has got no bearing on the maintainability of the present rent petition. It will not be out of place to mention here that the landlord has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal. 5. The Rent Controller dismissed the application of the tenant under Section 14 of the Act vide impugned order dated 22.01.2008. 6. The tenant did not feel satisfied with the impugned order of the Rent Controller and filed the present revision petition. That is how I am seized of the matter. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record of the case and after bestowal of thought over the entire matter, to my mind, as there is no merit, therefore, the present revision Civil Revision No.1214 of 2008 3 petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned herein below. 8. As indicated earlier, the tenant has filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act which provides that the Controller shall summarily reject any application under sub-section (2) or under sub-section (3) of Section 13 which raises substantially the issues as have been finally decided in a former proceeding under this Act. 9. At the very outset, the cosmetic argument of learned counsel for the tenant, that the decision of earlier petition under Section 13 of the Act would debar the landlord to file the present petition, is not devoid of merit but misplaced as well because the Controller has the powers to summarily reject only that application filed under sub-section (2) or sub- section (3) of Section 13 of the Act and not otherwise (not under Section 13-B) which raises substantially the issues as have been finally decided in a former proceeding under this Act. 10. Admittedly, the landlord has filed the present petition under Section 13-B of the Act being specified landlord (NRI) which postulates that wherein an owner is a Non-Resident-Indian and returns to India and the residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building, as the case may be, let out by him or her, is required for his or her use, or for the use of any one ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her, he or she, may apply to the Controller for immediate possession of such building or buildings, as the case may be. Non-Resident-Indian has been defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act. The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the Non- Resident-Indian-landlord is reflected from the summary proceedings prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act which requires the Controller to take up the matter on day-to-day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of the application. The legislature wants the decision of the Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order Civil Revision No.1214 of 2008 4 of eviction. It is only the High Court which can exercise the power of revisional jurisdiction to consider whether the decision of the Controller is in accordance with law. It means, Section 13-B of the Act gives right of ejectment of a special category of landlord who is a Non-Resident-Indian, owner of the premises for five years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for ejectment only once during his lifetime. Sub-section (3) of Section 13-B imposes a restriction that he shall not transfer it through sale or any other means or lease out the ejected premises before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that if there is a breach of opinion of the conditions enumerated above, the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession of the said building. According to sub-section (2- B) of Section 19 of the Act, the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he is prohibited from letting out whole or any part of such building to any other person except the evicted tenant and any contravention thereof was made punishable for imprisonment to the term which can be extended up to six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong presumption and gives a right to an Non-Resident- Indian-landlord for summary eviction. A heavy burden was imposed on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. It was intended to provide immediate possession of the accommodation owned by the Non-Resident-Indian 11. Meaning thereby, the entire different procedure has been provided for summary ejectment of a tenant for a specified Non-Resident- Indian-landlord under Section 13-B of the Act which cannot possibly be equated in any manner with the ordinary remedy provided under Section 13 of the Act for the purpose of Section 14 of the Act. The remedy emanating from Section 13-B of the Act is entirely different from the remedy under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith Civil Revision No.1214 of 2008 5 that the earlier petition filed under Section 13 of the Act by the landlord would preclude him from filing the present petition under Section 13-B of the Act in any manner. Hence, the other proceedings which have been taken by the landlord for ejectment under the general provision of the Act would not debar the landlord to pursue his petition under Section 13-B of the Act because this provision is a special provision connected with the welfare of the Non-Resident-Indians in this regard. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the trial of the main petition, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs in the obtaining circumstances of the case. October 30, 2009 ( Mehinder Singh Sullar) seema Judge Civil Revision No.1214 of 2008 6