Civil Revision No.4013 of 2006 (O&M) -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4013 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: September 24, 2010. Ram Dass ...Petitioner(s) v. Tavinder Kumar ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Hiten Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the respondent/review petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Review Application No.135-CII of 2010 Issue notice of the application. Counsel for the petitioner (non-applicant), Shri Hiten Nehra, accepts notice. Shri Nehra, at the outset, has submitted that before S.D. Anand, J. (retired), an argument was raised by Shri Subhash Goyal, Advocate, representing the respondent-tenant, regarding the effect of agreement dated 23.12.2002, relying upon which Rent Controller had dismissed the eviction petition. It is also admitted that this argument has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment. Hence, the application for review is accepted. The order dated Civil Revision No.4013 of 2006 (O&M) -: 2 :- May 12, 2010 is recalled and Civil Revision No.4013 of 2006 is taken on board for adjudication and disposal. Civil Revision No.4013 of 2006 Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the case of the parties is squarely covered by the judgment of a Coordinate Bench, rendered in Civil Revision No.5668 of 2008 (Ram Dass v. Ram Lal), decided on 5.10.2009, where the agreement dated 23.12.2002 was also subject matter of challenge. It is stated that Ram Lal and Tarvinder Kumar being father and son, were having two different adjoining shops in the same building on rent and the agreement dated 23.12.2002, arrived at between them and the landlord, is the subject matter of challenge in this petition as well. In Civil Revision No.5668 of 2008, following order was passed:- “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, Civil Revision No.4013 of 2006 (O&M) -: 3 :- thus, fulfills the two ingredients, namely , (i) he is NRI; (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 Civil Revision No.4013 of 2006 (O&M) -: 4 :- 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 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 Civil Revision No.4013 of 2006 (O&M) -: 5 :- 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. Sd/- (SURYA KANT) JUDGE” Counsel for the revision petitioner has urged that since much delay has already taken place, the order passed in Civil Revision No.5668 of 2008 may be varied, in the instant revision petition, only to the extent that the Rent Controller be directed to decide the eviction petition within three months instead of six months. Counsel for the respondent has no objection thereto. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed in same terms as in Civil Revision No.5668 of 2008 (Ram Dass v. Ram Lal) (supra). However, the Rent Controller shall make an endeavour to decide the eviction petition as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 07.10.2010. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 24, 2010. Judge kadyan