IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [1] Civil Revision No.3602 of 2008 O&M) Date of Decision : 08.09.2009 Salochana Devi .....Petitioner versus Tej Kaur wd/o Bhagat Singh .....Respondent [2] Civil Revision No.3603 of 2008 O&M) Rattan Lal .....Petitioner versus Tej Kaur wd/o Bhagat Singh .....Respondent [3] Civil Revision No.3604 of 2008 O&M) Ramesh Kumar .....Petitioner versus Tej Kaur wd/o Bhagat Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * * 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. This common order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.3602, 3603 and 3604 of 2008, which have been preferred by three different C.R. Nos.3602-3604 of 2008 (O&M) 2 tenants, challenging the orders dated 12.6.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby their applications for leave to contest the eviction applications filed by the respondent-NRI-landlady under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been dismissed on somewhat similar grounds and consequential eviction orders in respect of the respective tenanted portions of H.No.ES-9, Civil Lines, near Patel Hospital, Jalandhar, in their possession have been passed. Since the issues involved in these cases are similar and pertain to the same building owned by the respondent- landlady, the same have been heard and disposed of together. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent-Smt.Tej Kaur filed three eviction applications under Section 13-B of the Act against the petitioner-tenants seeking their ejectment from the demised premises which is a residential house. The eviction applications have been filed through an Attorney, inter-alia, averring that the demised premises is a double storeyed house built up in Khewat No.1013, Khatauni No.1259, Khasra No.21209/4423, situate in Civil Lines, near Patel Hospital, Jalandhar, and was purchased by the respondent and her husband Bhagat Singh vide a registered sale deed dated 4.7.1967. The husband of the respondent (Bhagat Singh) later on sold an area measuring 18 marlas out of the above said property to Smt.Kamla w/o Om Dutt Joshi, who became owner to the extent of 18/29th shares, which is also duly recorded in the revenue records. The respondent claims herself to be the exclusive owner of the left out portion, namely, the demised premises. She has further C.R. Nos.3602-3604 of 2008 (O&M) 3 averred that her husband went to United Kingdom in the year 1955 and she joined him there in the year 1961 and both have been living there ever since and that she is a Non-Resident Indian of `Indian origin' as she was born and brought up in India and her parents were also Indian citizens. She sought eviction of the petitioner-tenants to whom three different parts of the demised premises were let out, alleging that she wants to spend the evening of her life at Jalandhar with the subject house being her permanent abode. She also averred that neither any other residential house is owned by her nor did she get any other house vacated under Section 13-B of the Act. The petitioner-tenants contested the eviction applications and applied for leave to contest, inter-alia, on the grounds that: (i) the Attorney is not competent to file eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act; (ii) each tenancy constitutes a separate `building' and the benefit of Section 13-B of the Act could be availed qua one building only, and (iii) the respondent has no intention to stay in the demised premises and wants to dispose of the same at a higher premium. The Rent Controller did not find any substance in the grounds pressed into aid by the tenants and has dismissed their respective applications for leave to contest. As a necessary corollary thereto, the eviction orders have also been passed, giving rise to these revision petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders besides the applications for leave to defend C.R. Nos.3602-3604 of 2008 (O&M) 4 and other relevant records. The scope and import of Sections 2 (dd), 13-B and 18-A of the Act, as summarized by this Court in Civil Revision No.1385 of 2004 and other connected matters (Lakhwinder Kumar versus Pavitter Kaur (dead) through Lrs), decided on 7.9.2009 (relevant extracts only) may be usefully quoted 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 atleast 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 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 C.R. Nos.3602-3604 of 2008 (O&M) 5 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. In their applications for leave to contest, the petitioners are mainly harping upon two factual pleas. Firstly, they urge that the respondent-landlady herself has not come forward to depose or institute the case in support of her plea of personal necessity and secondly, the house in dispute is a huge bunglow comprising seven bed rooms which the respondent-landlady does not require for her own use and occupation. In my considered view, both the contentions are devoid of any merits and have no legal or factual basis. It is not the object of Section 13- B of the Act that a NRI-landlord must firstly return to India and then seek eviction of his tenant. This has been so explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa versus Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778 . There is a statutory presumption in favour of the need of the N.R.I. Landlord and heavy onus lies on the tenant to rebut such claim. The respondent-landlady was not required to come and depose in support of her plea of bonafide necessity so long as the petitioner-tenants were not successful to discharge their onus and shift it upon the landlady. Secondly, C.R. Nos.3602-3604 of 2008 (O&M) 6 the landlord is the best judge of his/her own requirement. The respondent might come alone to settle down at Jalandhar but it is not the case of the petitioners that she does not have other family members. If the respondent settles down in India permanently at this juncture of her life, it is obvious that her sons and grand-children, who have been referred to by the petitioners themselves in their applications for leave to contest as also in the injunction suit (s) filed by them, are expected to visit her frequently owing to her old age. In any case, the petitioners cannot advise the respondent that she should live in two or three rooms or must not enjoy the privilege and privacy of a single unit residential house. A feeble attempt has been made by the petitioners to suggest that the respondent is pre-determined to sell the subject house. Suffice it to say that there is no cogent material on record to support the plea which is based upon conjectures and surmises only. In any case, the legislature has taken care of such an eventuality by enacting Section 13-B (3) read with Section 19 of the Act which provide penal consequences in the event of mis-use of provisions of Section 13-B of the Act by a NRI-landlord. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in these revision petitions which are accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. 08-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE