Civil Revision No.2127 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2127 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.04.2009 Mohinder Singh .............Petitioner Vs. Sohan Singh Sethi ............Respondent Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes -.- K.KANNAN, J. 1. The tenant, who is faced with an order of ejectment in summary proceedings invoked by the landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 from a shop premises in Patiala, is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. The contention of the landlord had been that he was born in erstwhile undivided India at Rawalpindi and later he had shifted himself to U.K. where he has been living for several years. He had averred in the petition that being of Indian origin, he is an NRI and he was making preparation to come back to India in the twilight years of his life. According to him, the property was to be used along with few other shops nearby to construct a shopping-cum-residential complex. The tenant had disputed the status of the petitioner as an NRI and had Civil Revision No.2127 of 2008 (O&M) -2- also contended that the landlord had actually obtained eviction of another premises but he was not putting it to any use. There was no bona fides on his part to seek for eviction of the premises in his occupation. He had also contended that he had taken possession of the property only from the petitioner's father Amrik Singh and later he had come to know that Amrik Singh had gifted the property to Sri Guru Granth Sahib installed at Panchayat Gurudwara, Ghas Mandi, Patiala and that the petitioner himself was not entitled to maintain the petition for eviction. 3. The Rent Controller upheld the contention of the landlord finding that the tenant had admitted to have paid rent to the petitioner and he was not entitled to deny the status as landlord. Further he had observed that the alleged gift of the petitioner's father, Amrik Singh to the Gurudwara had itself been declared to be void and unenforceable by decree of Civil Court and the tenant was, therefore, bound to recognize the petitioner as his landlord. The petitioner's status as an NRI was upheld, having regard to the admitted position that he was a person of Indian origin although born in a place now part of Pakistan but at the time of his birth, it was part of India. Adverting to the defence that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide, the Rent Controller observed that there was a presumption in law about the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord and the landlord had sufficiently explained the fact that he had obtained eviction of another premises but he had still not occupied it only because of his contemplated action of demolishing the entire structure including the property that would be available for eviction in these proceedings so Civil Revision No.2127 of 2008 (O&M) -3- that he might put up a new construction, which would be a shopping- cum-residential complex. 4. The finding of the landlord is assailed before this Court by pointing out that Section 13-B of the Act provided for eviction only on the ground that the landlord returning to India but the petitioner had not stated anywhere that he had to return to India but had merely arrived in India before the filing of the petition and at the time of giving evidence, he had himself no intention of coming back to India. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Act only contemplated the requirement of the accommodation for running of business/residence and a contemplated future action for demolition of the building and for erection of a new complex was not good enough ground for ejectment. According to him, even the residential portion attached to the shop was vacant but the landlord was not himself occupying the same. Even in his evidence, it was only brought out that he was residing at the residence of his power of attorney whenever he visited India. The requirement was, therefore, not bona fide. 4. As regards the status of the person as NRI entitled to maintain the petition, there could be no doubt that what the relevant Section requires is the status of the person as a Non-Resident Indian, returning to India. A Non-Resident Indian has been defined under Section 2 (d) (d) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act "as a person to be of Indian origin who is either permanently or temporarily settled outside India; in either case – (a) for or on taking up employment outside India or (b) for carrying on a business or vocation Civil Revision No.2127 of 2008 (O&M) -4- outside India or (c) for any other purpose; in such circumstances, as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period." Landlord's status as a person of Indian origin had never been denied anywhere but the contest was on the fact that the petitioner had not stated anywhere that he was returning to India and that the petitioner had stated that he was arriving in India. The expression used by the landlord was an obvious euphemism and the Rent Controller had correctly adverted to the issue as one of distinction without a difference and found the maintainability of the petition in favour of the landlord. 5. The reasonings of the Rent Controller have been brought out on four basic premises: (i) a person born in Rawalpindi before partition was a person of Indian origin and he was entitled to invoke Section 13-B; (ii) the gift deed in favour of Gurudwara by the petitioner's father had been found to be nullified by a judgment of a Civil Court in Ex.A-7 and the petitioner's status as a landlord to whom rent had been paid through his power of attorney could not be denied; (iii) the dictionary meaning of the word “arrive” was reaching the destination and if the landlord used word “arrive” instead of “return”, same would not make any difference; (iv) Referring to the decision of this Court in Mukesh Kumar Vs. Santosh Kumari and others 2007 1 RLR 621 (P&H), if different portions of one integrated building had been let out to different tenants, then all the tenants could be evicted. The Rent Controller pointed out that once the requirement of both the shops was established by the disclosure of a proposal to erect the shopping complex-cum-residence and the fact that one portion of the Civil Revision No.2127 of 2008 (O&M) -5- building had become available even before filing of the petition would not be a factor to discount the requirement of the landlord. According to the Rent Controller, the right to seek eviction related to a building and not to a tenant and the process of eviction of a constituent of a building which is a larger whole was perfectly justified, under the circumstances. 6. I have detailed all the lines of reasoning of the Rent Controller only to bring home that all the legal submissions have been properly adverted to by the Rent Controller and the decision taken by the Rent Controller accords fully with law and facts brought before it. There is thus, no scope for interference in revision and the revision petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 16, 2009 Pankaj*