Rachpal Singh & Etc vs Gurmit Kumar & Etc

3) The factual matrix as asserted by the respondent /landlady are; the respondent/ Gurmit Kaur is the owner/landlady of the disputed property which was purchased by her vide registered sale deed dated 16.4.1971. The building has four shops and three of which has been let out to the appellants and the fourth shop to one Sri Vijay Kumar. The respondent claiming to be an NRI and being desirous of having possession of the tenanted premises so as to settle down in India, sought eviction of tenants by filing separate petitions under section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against all the four tenants.

4) The tenants appeared in all the four eviction petitions, out of which three are pending before the Rent Controller, Nakodar. The tenants have filed applications for leave to contest under section 18-A of the act, wherein, they dispute the landlord and tenant relationship and according to them the shops were let out to them by one Gurbachan Singh and not by respondent and the tenants are paying rents regularly to him. Secondly, the respondent was not an NRI at the time of letting out the shop premises and has not acquired the status of an NRI even till today.

5) In the eviction petition filed against one another tenant Vijay Kumar, the respondent had claimed that she is an NRI and has leased out one of the 2 shops in the building owned by her to Vijay Kumar in the year 1990. Since, she has come back to India, she requires the shop premises for her own use and occupation. By way of defence, it was alleged by Vijay Kumar that he is not the tenant of the disputed shop, and it is his brother Vipin Kumar is the tenant and is running the shop in his own name and, therefore, the proceedings filed under section 13-B of the Rent Act is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties.

6) The Rent Controller, Nakodar, vide its order dated 15.6.2007, without giving any finding with regard to the status of the respondent/Gurmit Kaur being NRI or not, had concluded that the tenancy created in favour of Vijay Kumar stands prima facie proved from the rent deed dated 7.7.1993 and as such there is no tenancy created in favour of Vipin Kumar and therefore, the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Rent Act by the landlady deserves to be allowed and, accordingly, has directed Vijaya Kumar to deliver the immediate possession of the shop premises to the landlady.

9) The High Court, while allowing the petitions has observed, that, the Rent Controller would be justified in permitting the tenants leave to defend, if it is of the opinion that some triable issue would arise in view of the contentions raised in the application filed under Section 18-A of the Act and at any rate, not on the ground that the respondent is not an NRI and that would lead to incongruous situation in view of the conflicting orders passed by the same court on the status of the respondent, and accordingly, has set aside the impugned orders and has remitted back to the Rent Controller, Nakodar, to reconsider the application filed by the tenants under Section 18-A of the Act in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order of remand so passed, the appellants are before us in this appeal.

13)We, accordingly, dismiss these appeals and sustain the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, we direct the Rent Controller to independently examine the applications filed by the appellants under Section 18-A of the Act in accordance with law and also if there are any triable issues between the parties, decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within an outer limit of nine months from the date of receipt of this Court's order and while doing so, the Rent Controller need not be influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court while disposing of Civil Revision Petitions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.