CR No.5668 of 2008 (O&M) - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.23228-29-CII of 2009 & CR No.5668 of 2008 (O&M) Date Of Decision: 05.10.2009 **** Ram Dass . . . . Petitioner VS. Ram Lal . . . . Respondent **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Hiten Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) CM No.23228-29-CII of 2009 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.5668 of 2008 This Revision Petition is directed by the NRI-landlord whose eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.05.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Phillaur, heavily relying upon an agreement dated 23rd December, 2002 (Ex.R1) executed between the attorney of the petitioner and the respondent-tenant. The respondent is a tenant in a shop situated at Barapind Road, Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur within the Notified Area Committee of Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar which is admittedly owned by the petitioner, who is a Non-Resident Indian. There appears to be no dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the demised premises for more than five years, before filing the eviction petition. He, thus, fulfills the two ingredients, namely, (i) he is NRI; CR No.5668 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - (ii) owner of the demised premises for a period of at least five years in terms of Section 13-B of the Act. The petitioner, however, was further required to plead and show that the demised premises is required by him for his own use and occupation or for a person dependent on him. The Rent Controller, while considering the petitioner’s plea of personal necessity for the shop in dispute, relied upon the above stated agreement dated 23.12.2002 and has dismissed the eviction petition after holding that the petitioner does not need the demised premises for his own use and occupation. Without going into the further details, it would be apposite to reproduce the translated version of the said agreement dated 23.12.2002 (relevant extracts) which reads as follows:- I, Kesho Lal son of Gurmit Ram, resident of village Bhakhdiana, Tehsil Phagwara, am the special power of attorney of Ram Dass son of Jagat Singh, resident of Jagat Colony, Bara Pind Road, Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur (1st Party) and Ram Lal son of Karam Singh and Tawinder Kumar son of Ram lal, are residents of Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur (IInd Party). That 1st party had filed a case against the tenants of his both shops measuring 10’ x 35’ and 10’ x 35’, situated at Barapind Road, Goraya for eviction of both the shops and recovery of balance rent. Now some respectable persons of the City have intervened in the matter and got effected a compromise between both the parties, which is to the following effect: - That one shop of Ist Party is on rent with Ram Lal for the last 24 years and second shop is on rent with Twinder Kumar for the last about 3 ½ years. The rent in respect of shop pertaining to Ram Lal is Rs.400/- per month and that of Tawinder Kumar is Rs.1000/- per month. As and when, the Ist party would construct new shops after demolishing the existing shops, he would provide new shops of equal area of the IInd party. After the construction of new shops, fresh agreement would be made and on construction of new shops, the rent of one shop would be settled at Rs.2000/- per month. The Ist Party would issue receipt after receiving the rent. The balance outstanding rent against Ram Lal and Twinder Singh, tenants up to 31.12.2002 has been received in cash in the presence of witnesses and now no amount is outstanding against them. On completion of new shops, rent @ 5% per annum would be enhanced every year and till the construction of new shops, rent would be charged at the existing rates against receipt. All cases filed by Ist party against CR No.5668 of 2008 (O&M) - 3 - the IInd party in different courts at Phillaur would be withdrawn and same would be filed. The said shops would remain on rent with them during their whole life time and Ist party would be bound not to get the said shops vacated from the parties under the provisions of NRI Act or any other Act. (Emphasis supplied). Suffice it to say that while placing reliance on the above stated Agreement (Ex.R1), the Rent Controller has completely overlooked the fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant is governed by the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as amended from time to time. No agreement arrived at between the parties which runs contrary to the provisions of law can be given effect or sanctity over and above the statutory provisions. At the same time, some of the recitals in the agreement, could at the best be relied upon as a piece of evidence for determining, as to whether or not the petitioner requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. In other words, the agreement in question could not be the sole basis to form any definite opinion. For the reasons aforestated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned eviction order dated 20.05.2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Rent Controller, Phillaur to decide the petitioner’s eviction petition afresh and in accordance with law. The observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. The Rent Controller shall make an endeavour to decide the eviction petition as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 4.11.2009. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 05.10.2009 shonkar CR No.5668 of 2008 (O&M) - 4 -