VED PAL KAUSHAL Vs. HARCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision is filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the order dated 3.9.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, thereby allowing the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the Act, directing eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demise premises.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that landlord filed eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act for ejectment of the tenant -revisionist from the tenanted premises fully described in the heading of the petition, inter-alia, on the ground that the house in question was purchased by the landlord vide sale deed dated 19.6.1980. The tenant - revisionist was inducted at monthly rent of Rs.1500/- per month vide agreement dated 26.7.1982. The rent stood enhanced to Rs.1700/- with effect from 26.7.1986. The land lord was in service in Kuwait and stood retired from job on 30.6.1999 and after his retirement he decided to shift to India with bag and baggage and to live in his own country in his own ways. Earlier the landlord had filed petition under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of his bonafide personal necessity, however, during the pendency of the said petition, Section 13-B was introduced in the Act, hence, present petition is filed under Section 13-B of the Act. It is further alleged by the landlord that he has every intention to permanently settle in India, hence he requires the demise premises for his personal use and occupation. Tenant - revisionist herein moved an application seeking leave to contest the petition and permission was granted vide order dated 28.9.2001. Thereafter, tenant - revisionist filed a reply to the petition. The tenant has admitted the existence of relationship of landlord - tenant between the parties. The tenant further admitted that the landlord was in employment in Kuwait and has retired from service with effect from 30.6.1999. However, tenant has pleaded that the landlord has no intention to settle in India after retirement rather the landlord along with his family had gone to Canada. It is further contended by the tenant that the land lord has visited India 2/3 times for a short period. It is further pleaded by the tenant that the landlord has got independent set consisting of two rooms, one kitchen and one bathroom, but he has not occupied the said premises, and hence, the landlord has no need of the demise premises. Moreover, the status of the landlord as an NRI is challenged.

(3.) The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition by the impugned judgement dated 3.9.2004. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Himani Sarin, advocate vehemently argued that the landlord in paragraphs 3 and 6 of the eviction petition has stated that he stood retired from service in Kuwait on 30.6.1999 and after his retirement he has come back to India with bag and baggage for taking up permanent residence in India. He further argued that since landlord has returned to India with bag and baggage in 1999 prior to enactment of Section 13-B in the year 2001, hence the landlord cannot be said to be an NRI as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act. He further argued that to attract definition of NRI as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act, a person should be either permanently or temporarily settled outside India on the date Section 13-B of the Act was enacted i.e. on 31.5.2001. It is further contended that landlord has earlier filed one petition under Section 13 of the Act and during the pendency of earlier eviction petition, landlord has filed present petition under Section 13-B of the Act with malafide intention. Mr. Sarin further argued that the landlord is absolutely in no need of the demise premises and he has no intention to reside in India and to occupy the demise premises and he has every intention to transfer the demise property.