C.R. No.5491 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5491 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.05.2009 Tejinder Singh .......Petitioner Versus Rajpal ....Respondent Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sibbal, 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.(ORAL) 1. The tenant, who applied for grant of leave to defend in a petition under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was rejected in his plea and he is the aggrieved party before this Court in revision. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits four lines of defences as available to him to merit consideration for the grant of leave. His contention is that in the face of express denial of the status of the petitioner as a non-resident Indian, nothing was forthcoming from the landlord's side except his assertion that he is a Non-resident Indian. He points out that the Rent Controller has not adverted to the issue at all and even in the absence of production of a passport declaring his status as such Non-resident C.R. No.5491 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Indian, the Rent Controller could not have rejected the leave to defend. 3. Another ground, which he would urge, is that the landlord shall also have to prove the ownership of the property for a period of five years prior to the institution of the petition. The petition, according to him, lacked the details of his entitlement to be treated as the "specified landlord" having ownership of the premises, as required under Section 13-B of the Act. Here again, the petitioner had merely referred to his right to the property with no details as to how he had obtained ownership in support of the property. 4. The plea of bona fides obtained a larger dimension in that the landlord had entered into compromise with the tenant only in November, 2007 where he had permitted the tenant to put the property to such use as he wished on a rent determined between the parties and the objection filed just five months after the filing of the petition betrays the lack of bona fides that the landlord required the property for his own benefit. The bona fides of the requirement was also attacked on the ground that the landlord was shown to be owner of five shops and some land situate to the same town, as evidenced by Jamabandi for the year 2005-06 and even that was not properly appreciated by the Rent Controller to accord to the tenant the leave to defend. 5. Even apart from the contentions relating to the pleadings, an objection taken on behalf of the tenant was that the property had been let only by the petitioner's father and since the initial letting had not been done by the landlord himself, the landlord cannot stake his C.R. No.5491 of 2008 (O&M) -3- reliance on Section 13-B. To him, the answer was directly available with a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Devi Vs. Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2) SCC 271. Yet another objection equally of a technical nature is that the petition had been filed through a power of attorney and such petition ought not to be entertained in view of the decision in Basant Kumar Vs. Romesh Kumar Deora 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil ) 176. 6. To each one of the above contentions urged, the landlord has sought to give explanations but the question is whether such explanation is such as to make it so formidable that it can throw out the defence at the threshold even without affording an opportunity to join all the points of contention by affording right to the parties to go to trial. 7. As regards the claim of the landlord that he was a Non- resident Indian, learned counsel for the respondent had shown his address to be in Delhi and there were definite averments to the effect that he was a Non-resident Indian. He would point out to the statement in defence, which contains no more reference to the fact that tenant did not admit the petitioner to be a landlord/Non-resident Indian. This bare denial, according to him, was not sufficient. 8. The plea regarding the want of proof of the ownership of the building was, according to the landlord, a matter of non-issue since the landlord had averred with sufficient clarity that he was the owner of the property, which was in the possession of the tenant since the year 1996 and therefore, it should be understood that his ownership of the property for more than a period of five years was impliedly C.R. No.5491 of 2008 (O&M) -4- admitted. As regards the contention of the tenant that the Jamabandi made reference to the existence of other property also, he would point out to the document (Annexure P-6) as making reference only to a land in the vicinity of the Municipal Committee and therefore, there was nothing to suggest that the landlord owned any building that disentitled him to apply for eviction in support of the property. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent adverted to the fact that the so-called compromise between the landlord and tenant under which he was purported to have permitted the tenant to put the property in use as he wished had been brought about at the intervention of police by exercise of coercion and he was not bound by such document. According to him, the document contained intrinsic details about the fact that the tenant had made a complaint to the police about the alleged threat of dispossession at the instance of the landlord, when the police interceded to secure the compromise in the manner referred to and a tenant, who had armed himself with a document in a questionable way cannot put the same document against the landlord to deny the bona fides of the landlord. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the document was a proof of lack of bona fides of the tenant himself and it could be shown as an argument against the landlord's interest. 10. A detailed consideration, one way or the other on every one of the lines of defence and the explanations given by the landlord might have an adverse effect if any opinion is expressed. Suffice it to point out that the defences are not flimsy and each one of them has legal basis. A Court that considers whether leave to defend shall be C.R. No.5491 of 2008 (O&M) -5- granted or not under Section 18 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act has to only see whether the defence is such that the landlord's petition for eviction could be decided against him or that the defence is not a moonshine and it could be supported by appropriate evidence or legal propositions. On the contentions made by the tenant, it should be treated as a case that merits right to defend by the grant of leave and the Court shall provide opportunity for the parties to join issues on the contentious matters and make adjudication after a full-fledged trial. 11. The rejection of the leave without noticing that the defences had a reasonable basis is, in my view, done without proper consideration of the relevant contentions sought to be taken in defence and the order of the Rent Controller is accordingly set aside and allowing the tenant the leave to defend, the tenant shall file the written statement and the Court shall enter into adjudication on every one of the issues and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, having regard to the legislative intent that petition under Section 13-B is adjudicated on a fast track and a decision to be given preferably within a period of six months from the time when the statement is filed and the issues are framed. 13. The civil revision is allowed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 18, 2009 Pankaj*