C.R. No.2560 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2560 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.05.2009 Lal Chand .......Petitioner Versus Kundan Singh ....Respondent Present: Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 ? -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The civil revision petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking for ejectment of the tenant was allowed by the Rent Controller and the tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. The contention of the landlord was that he was the owner of the property along with his two brothers and in an oral partition, the property had been allotted to him. He was born at Goraya in India but subsequently settled permanently in U.K. He returned to India and he has established his own business in India. The contention was taken by the tenant that the petitioner was not an NRI but a British citizen and he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Section 13-B of the abovesaid Act. His further contention was that the property itself had not been let by the landlord to him and the status of the landlord having been denied, the Court cannot entertain the petition. The bona fides of requirement of the landlord was itself not in serious challenge and the C.R. No.2560 of 2009 (O&M) -2- controversy stood for consideration only on the fundamental status of whether the petitioner was an NRI and his entitlement to invoke the provisions of the Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner laid emphasis on the fact that the landlord had earlier filed a petition along with his brothers for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent but later he had withdrawn the same. He contended that the so-called oral partition of the year 1992 could not be true for, if there was, the landlord could not have joined along with other brothers in filing a petition earlier in the year 2000. His further contention was that the status of landlord was specifically questioned by the petitioner and there was no proof that he was a Non-resident Indian. His further contention was that the landlord was bound to prove his ownership, which he had not done and the petition itself did not disclose his entitlement to the property. 4. Each one of the contentions could be seen to be untenable. The fact that the petitioner belonged to Goraya (India) and that he was a person of Indian origin was never in dispute. In the cross-examination, the defendant had denied any knowledge about the origin of the landlord and the Rent Controller, therefore, observed that the tenant's contention was only evasive and the landlord's status as a Non-Resident Indian could not be denied, after due reference to a passport filed by him and the evidence by the landlord that he had been permanently residing in United Kingdom and that he was returning to India. The finding relating to the status of the landlord as a Non-Resident Indian was, therefore, perfectly justified. C.R. No.2560 of 2009 (O&M) -3- 5. The second contention of the learned counsel for the tenant was that there was no proof of ownership of the landlord in relation to the property and that further there was no form of tenancy between the parties. As a matter of fact, there was no specific denial anywhere in the statement that the landlord was not the owner of the property. It was only contended that the case of oral partition could not be true since in an earlier rent petition that was instituted in the year 2000, the landlord had filed the petition along with his brothers, which only showed that there had been no such partition. In the written statement, the contention was that there was no letting by the landlord to him to invoke Section 13-B but at the time of argument, learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged a different point, which was never argued before the Rent Controller or taken up in the written statement. Indeed, the ownership question itself does not loom at by the fact that even in the earlier proceedings, the landlord along with his two brothers had specifically referred to the fact that the property had been let on rent to the respondent by one Surjit Kaur and the property had been purchased by the brothers under three sale deeds dated 09.09.1987, 27.10.1987 and 28.10.1987. The petition had been filed on the ground that despite the fact of purchase and demand for payment of rent, the tenant had failed to tender the rent rendering himself liable for eviction. The tenant had paid rent in the proceedings and the petition was withdrawn. In a case where the tenant had actually paid rent and saved himself from eviction on an earlier occasion, such a tenant cannot deny the status of the landlord. Oral partition or otherwise, the petitioner's right as a landlord, which was conceded in the earlier proceedings cannot be C.R. No.2560 of 2009 (O&M) -4- disputed now. Even otherwise, the landlord was entitled to sue for ejectment in his capacity as co-owner and it was nobody's case that the other brothers did not consent to the filing of the petition or they held any interest adverse to the landlord himself. The Court below has considered the case in its entire perspective and has relied on decisions enabling any one of the co-owners returning to India for taking action for ejectment against his tenant and he also referred to the fact of effect of payment of rent in the proceedings by a respondent to a petitioner claiming ejectment to observe that such a person cannot deny the status of the landlord. It has also made reference to the copy of the passport that showed his earlier belonging to Goraya and the fact that the landlord had come clean with all facts by referring to the earlier application filed by him and his brothers against the respondents. It has also specifically made reference to Ex.A-5, which was a statement made by the respondent where he had tendered the rent and even in the statement he had not denied the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. 6. Referring to the landlord's specific contention that he intended to start a business as soon as he obtained eviction, the Court found that there was no factor disabling him to obtain eviction or to doubt his genuine need. The decision of the Court below is a well considered one and does not require any intervention in revision. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 12 , 2009 Pankaj*