IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3549 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.9.2011 P.C. Soni -----Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Nirmal Kaur & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. M.S. Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 whereby leave to defend has been declined to the petitioner in a petition filed under Section 13- B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, “the Act”) on behalf of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. 2. As per the averments made in this revision petition, Harinder Singh predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises through his Special Power of Attorney Shri Surjit Singh son of Gian Singh, pleading that he C.R. No.3549 of 2011 was residing in Canada and had been visiting India oftenly. The attorney Shri Surjit Singh had full authority to file the petition on the basis of power of attorney dated 24.2.2008. The said Harinder Singh was the owner of the demises premises for the last more than five years which comprised in Khasra No.5551 and 5554 of Khewat No.5268, Khatauni No.6116 as per the jamabandi for the year 1989-90, wherein he is recorded as owner of 11/60 share in the land comprised in these khasra numbers, over which the house in question was constructed. Harinder Singh was owner of the premises in question for a period of more than five years prior to filing of the ejectment petition. He was a Non- Resident Indian (NRI) having gone abroad more than a decade ago, where he was working without knowing as to when he was likely to return to India. He was born and brought up in India and as such being an NRI was entitled to the benefit of Section 13-B of the Act. It was further pleaded in the petition that the said Harinder Singh decided to come back to India permanently and to live in the house in question. He has also got vacated the accommodation in the house in question from one of the tenants and had also requested the petitioner to vacate the portion of house in his occupation, as the entire house was bona fidely required by him for his own use and occupation as well as by his family members. Since the petitioner failed to vacate the premises in dispute, petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Act. 2 C.R. No.3549 of 2011 3. The petitioner put in appearance and moved an application under Section 18-A(4) of the Act seeking permission of the Court for granting leave to contest the said petition. In the said application, the petitioner averred that the respondent- Harinder Singh was not recorded as owner of the house in question. There was no title deed in his favour qua the house in question. He was not an NRI, as defined in the Act. He had no intention to return back to India to settle here permanently. The petition filed through his attorney was not maintainable. He has failed to give the details of other accommodation already available with him, as he was already in possession of another accommodation which was sufficient as per his needs and the present petition had been filed only to get the tenanted premises vacated from him. Thus, the petitioner has disclosed such facts before the Court which entitled him for grant of leave to contest the petition, as triable issues were raised. 4. The said application for grant of leave to defend was contested by the respondents and the Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide impugned order dated 31.3.2011 declined to grant leave to contest the petition. While passing the impugned order, the Rent Controller held that the petitioner is an NRI, as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act and has been shown as owner in possession of the demised premises for the last more than five years prior to institution of the ejectment petition against the petitioner and he required the entire house including the demised 3 C.R. No.3549 of 2011 premises which are part of the said house for his own use and occupation as well as by his family members. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued before this Court that the respondent-landlord has failed to produce on record any document of title to prove his ownership over the demised premises, as Jamabandi/revenue record produced on record cannot be treated as document of title and thus, the petitioner had raised a triable issue before the Rent Controller and it was imperative for him to grant leave to contest the ejectment petition in favour of the petitioner. 6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. It is well settled that presumption of truth is attached to the Jamabandi/revenue record. No doubt, the said presumption is rebutable, however, it was for the petitioner to bring on record sufficient material to prima facie show that the aforesaid presumption of ownership of the respondent-landlord on the basis of Jamabandi is rebutable. However, no such document/material has been mentioned by the petitioner in his application for leave to contest. Not only this, the petitioner has categorically admitted the factum of ownership of the demised premises of Harinder Singh as a co-owner vide his reply to Legal Notice dated 14.3.2008 addressed to Shri V.K. Sareen, Advocate, District Courts, Jalandhar (Anneuxre P-7). In his application for grant of leave to defend, the petitioner has also admitted the fact 4 C.R. No.3549 of 2011 that the demised premises were rented out to him by the respondent by stating that he used to pay rent to him. It may also be noticed that the status of the petitioner as NRI has not been disputed before this Court. The fact that the petitioner was the owner of the property in dispute for the last more than five years prior to institution of the present proceedings was also not disputed. In view of the aforesaid facts established on record, it is to be presumed that need of the respondent with regard to the property in dispute was bona fide. The said presumption of bona fide need could have been rebutted by the petitioner by placing sufficient material on record to show that the need as raised by the respondent-landlord was mala fide or that the respondent- landlord was not in bona fide need of the demised premises. 7. The further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-landlord has not given the site plan or detail of the property in possession or that he was having sufficient accommodation at his disposal which was sufficient for his needs is only to be rejected, as it is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and neither the Rent Controller nor the petitioner-tenant has any right to dictate his terms to the landlord qua his needs. The judgment of this Court in the case of Swaraj Kumar Manroy v. Baldev Raj Sharma and another 2007(1) RCR 583 (P&H) relied on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case, as in the said case, the tenant was granted leave to defend the 5 C.R. No.3549 of 2011 ejectment petition and thereafter, the Court found that some accommodation was already available with the landlord and he has failed to prove as to how the accommodation available with him was not sufficient to his need. There is no doubt that leave to defend can be granted only if the tenant makes out a strong case that triable issues are arising in the ejectment petition. No such case has been made out by the petitioner from his pleadings before the Rent Controller. 8. Therefore, no error can be found in the impugned order. Dismissed. September 29, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 6