Civil Revision No. 6609 of 2006. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. [I] C.R. No. 6609 of 2006. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th December, 2009. Satwinder Singh Sehmbi Petitioner through Mr. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate Versus Jeet Kaur Respondent through Mr. A.S.Syan, Advocate. [II] C.R. No. 6616 of 2006. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th December, 2009. Monika Sethi Petitioner through Mr. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate Versus Jeet Kaur Respondent through Mr. A.S.Syan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 6609 and 6616 of 2006 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases. Both the petitioners, who are tenants in their respective shops forming part of the building No. 3, Guru Nagar, New Model Town, Jalandhar, have been ordered to be evicted vide orders dated 8.11.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar in two separate eviction petitions filed against them by the respondent under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, Civil Revision No. 6609 of 2006. ::-2-:: 1949. [2]. The respondent filed two separate eviction petitions under Section 13-B of the Act claiming herself to be a Non-Resident-Indian -cum-owner of the demised premises. She averred that the entire building was purchased by her vide registered sale deed bearing No. 455 dated 18.4.1973 and by virtue thereof has got absolute title in her favour. The respondent further averred that the petitioners are occupying one shop each on payment of monthly rent of Rs.650/- [CR No. 6609 of 2006] and Rs. 525/- [CR No. 6616 of 2006]. The respondent – NRI landowner sought eviction of the petitioners summarily under Section 13-B read with Section 18-A of the Act, inter-alia, on the ground that she is a Non-Resident-Indian who was born in India. The respondent placed on record the attested copy of her Passport issued by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She also attached a copy of the Identity Card issued by the NRI Sabha, Punjab. The respondent further averred that she has returned India with a view to settle down permanently and is presently residing at Jalandhar. The respondent also averred that she is owner of the demised premises for a period of more than five years before filing of the eviction petition and requires the same for her own use and occupation as she intends to start suitable business to make herself financially independent. [3]. Upon notice, both the petitioners filed their respective applications seeking leave to contest. While the petitioners could not dispute the ownership of the respondent qua the demised premises, they denied the relationship of landlord and tenant on the plea that they were inducted as tenants by one Ajit Singh who has been Civil Revision No. 6609 of 2006. ::-3-:: issuing rent receipts [photo copies placed on record by the petitioner in CR No. 6616 of 2006] and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to get them evicted. The petitioners also took the plea that the respondent being a 75 years oold woman, has no intention to permanently settle down in India or start any business and that the eviction petition has been filed mala-fidely. [4]. The Rent Controller has declined leave to contest and has passed consequential eviction orders against the petitioners giving rise to these revision petitions. [5]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records including that of the Rent Controller which have been summoned. [6]. The provisions added vide Act No. 9 of 2001 whereby East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has been amended with a view to enable the NRI – landlords to seek eviction of their tenants summarily, have been elaborately dealt with by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v Monish Saini, 2005[12] SCC, 778, the conclusions whereof may be summarized as follows:- “(i) Any person, who himself is of Indian Origin and/or whose parents/grand-parents are/were of Indian Origin and who is settled outside India either permanently or temporarily for taking up employment or for carrying on business/vocation would be a Non-Resident Indian; (ii) a Non-Resident Indian-landlord has a special right to seek immediate possession of the let-out premises if he is its owner for at-least a period of 5 years before his applying to the Rent Controller for possession and that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation and/or for anyone ordinarily living with him and is Civil Revision No. 6609 of 2006. ::-4-:: dependent on him; (iii) the right under Section 13-B of the Act for immediate possession can be availed of only once during the life-time of such an owner/NRI landlord; (iv) the NRI-landlord has the choice to select one amongst several other residential/non-residential buildings; (v) it is not necessary for a NRI-landlord to permanently return to India for seeking eviction of the tenant; (vi) the Courts shall presume that the need of the NRI- landlord is genuine and bonafide, though the tenant is entitled to prove that in fact and in law, the requirement of the NRI-landlord is not genuine; (vii) a heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the NRI-landlord is not genuine and mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord’s favour; (viii) if the NRI-landlord gets possession under Section 13-B of the Act, he can neither transfer it either by sale or by any other mode nor can he let it out for a period of 5 years and in case of any breach, the tenant is entitled to seek restoration of possession; (ix) after getting the possession, the NRI-landlord should occupy the premises continuously for a period of 3 months”. [7]. This Court in Lakhwinder Kaur v Pavitter Kaur, Civil Revision No. 1385 of 2004, decided on 07.09.2009 has further summarized various other decisions on the new Legislation and observed that:- “Keeping the plain and unambiguous language of the statute in view and following the interpretation given by the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa’s case (supra), Civil Revision No. 6609 of 2006. ::-5-:: to the provisions inserted vide Amendment Act No.9 of 2001, every Rent Controller, while deciding an eviction application under Section 13-B of the Act, is obviously required to ascertain that (i) the applicant is a Non- Resident Indian; (ii) he is owner of the subject premises; (iii) his ownership is more than 5 years old as on the date when he applies for eviction; (iv) the applicant-NRI- landlord has pleaded and explained that he needs the subject premises for his own and/or for the use and occupation of anyone ordinarily living with and dependent upon him; (v) such NRI-landlord has not earlier availed the benefit of Section 13-B of the Act in respect of any other premises. Similarly, wherever a tenant seeks leave to contest, the Rent Controller would ascertain as to: (i) whether or not such an application accompanying by an affidavit has been moved within 15 days from the date of effecting service upon the tenant as per the Schedule-II; (ii) whether or not the tenant has raised a triable issue duly supported with some cogent material, which if proved, would disentitle the NRI-landlord to seek eviction of the tenant; (iii) the leave to contest cannot be granted on mere asking and the tenant would be under a heavy onus to establish that the landlord’s eviction application lacks in material particulars and does not fall within the four corners of Section 13-B of the Act”. [8]. In the case in hand, the solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner – tenants is that since there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the respondent is not entitled to seek their eviction under Section 13-B of the Act. They have also questioned the bona-fide need of the respondent. [9]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some Civil Revision No. 6609 of 2006. ::-6-:: length, I do not find any merit in both the contentions. The ownership qua the demised premises acquired by the respondent by way of registered sale deed dated 18.4.1973 is not in dispute. It is also the conceded position that both the petitioners were inducted as tenants much thereafter. Assuming that the respondent had authorized someone, namely, Ajit Singh, to collect rent from the petitioners while she has been staying abroad, it does not mean that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. There is no rent-note executed by Ajit Singh in favour of the petitioners. The rent- receipts said to have been issued by Ajit Singh, at the best, prove the payment of rent through him. What is of paramount importance is that while seeking eviction of a tenant under Section 13-B, the NRI must prove his ownership qua the let out premises and that too for at least five years before filing of the eviction petition. The said condition having been satisfied by the respondent and her categoric stand being that the petitioners were inducted as tenants by her, it can be safely inferred that the collection of rent from the petitioners or arranging other basic amenities which a landlord is statutorily obligated under the Act, were the acts performed by Ajit Singh as an agent of the principal-landlord, namely, the respondent. The said authorization does not infringe with the right of the respondent to seek eviction of the petitioners whose admitted status is that of tenants in the demised premises concededly owned by the respondent. [10]. Similarly, the plea that the respondent does not require the demised premises in this old age is devoid of any merit. It is the categoric case of the respondent that she has returned India with an Civil Revision No. 6609 of 2006. ::-7-:: intention to settle down permanently, it appears plausible for her to have some independent source of income. It is for the respondent to run whatever business activities she is capable to start with or without the aid of supporting staff as she is the best judge to utilize the property in the manner she wants. The fact remains that the respondent – landlady fulfills all the ingredients laid down in Section 13-B of the Act and is, therefore, entitled to seek eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises. [11]. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in the revision petitions, which are accordingly dismissed, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs. December 14, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE