ANWAR ALI Vs. GIAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference to a larger Bench has been necessitated on account on the divergent views taken by two learned Single Judges of this Court in M.R.F Limited and another v. S. Major Singh Purewal, 2009 1 RCR(Rent) 624 and Paramjit Singh Bara v. Joginder Singh and another with regard to the consequences that would enumerate in law following the decision of Rent Controller to refuse leave to a tenant to denied an application filed by a landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the At") for eviction of the tenant. To appreciate the issues involved, it will be necessary for the Court to specifically notice the provisions of Section 13-B and Section 18-A of the Act, which are extracted below :-

(2.) A conjoint reading of the aforesaid two provisions of the Act would go to show that the legislature in its wisdom thought it is necessary to engraft provisions for expeditious disposal of petitions for eviction filed by Non- residential landlord. Under Section 13-B, leave to defend, has to be sought by a tenant and only upon such leave being granted, it would be open for the tenant to contest the claim of the landlord with regard to his requirement of the tenanted premises. Once leave is refused, Section 18-A (4) introduces a deeming provision by which the claim of the landlord with regard to the need for the premises is to be presumed.

(3.) Apart from the specific provisions of the Act, reproduced above, particularly those contained in sub-section 4 of Section 18-A, the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005 2 RCR(Rent) 470 had occasion to deal with the very same provisions of the Act. After an elaborate discussion, which is available in the text of the judgment, the Apex Court came to a conclusion that the provisions of Section 13-B wafid-require the tenant to bring on record evidence of a very strong character to rebut the legal presumption that is inbuilt in Section 18-A of the Act with regard to the need of the N.R.I. landlord in respect of the tenanted premise. Only upon such convincing evidence being laid i before the Rent Controller, leave to defend can be granted, failing which, obviously, the legal presumption with regard to the need of the landlord would continue to hold the field.