PREM KUMAR PATEL Vs. INDERJIT SINGH GREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 7.9.2001 whereby the application by the petitioner seeking leave to defend has been declined.

(2.) THE two respondents had jointly purchased House No. 100-I, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana in the year 1982. The ground floor of this house was given on rent to the petitioner in year 1984. It is not disputed that the respondents are persons of Indian origin and have been settled in England for employment for the last more than 16 years. Accordingly, they are Non-resident Indians. They filed a petition under Section 13-B read with section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted portion of House No. 100-I, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana on the ground that it is required by them for their own use. The respondent No. 1 had come to India and had filed the petition on his own behalf as well as on behalf of respondent No. 2 who had duly authorised him to do so. It was explained that respondent No. 2, the other co-owner, is his father's sister. She is an unmarried lady of 73 years of age and is suffering from paralyses. She is on wheel chair and is totally dependent on respondent No. 1 and therefore she intends to settle down in India along with him. It was also alleged that a son of respondent No. 1, who is of marriageable age, as also an unmarried sister of his presently residing in the first floor of the premises since September, 2000 and this portion of property was insufficient for the use of respondents. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1 also wanted to perform the marriage of his son in the premises in dispute and, thereafter, reside in the aforesaid house. It was also pointed out that there was no other house except first floor of the building in dispute in possession of the respondents and the said portion is without any drawing room, dining room or guest room.

(3.) MR . Sumeet Mahajan appeared on behalf of the petitioner and reiterated the pleas raised before the Rent Controller. According to him, the petitioner had made out a prima facie case by raising such pleas which gave rise to triable issues. Therefore, the leave to defend sought by the petitioner ought to have been granted. According to him, the Rent Controller at the stage of consideration of the application of the petitioner was not justified in going into the merits of the objections raised by him. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, JT 2001(1) SC 308 : 2001(1) RCR (Rent) 33 (SC) in this behalf. He also placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Prit Pal Kaur v. B.S. Ahuja, 1996(2) RLR 305 : 1996(1) RCR (Rent) 630 (P&H), The Punjab and Sind Bank and others v. Kashmir Singh Bhullar (K.S. Bhullar), 1996(1) RCR (Rent) 671 (P&H) : 1996(2) RLR 296, Surjan Singh v. Krishan Lal Garg, 1996(1) RCR (Rent) 610 (P&H) : 1996(2) RLR 300 and K.G.P. Pillai v. Subhash Chander Pathania, 1996(2) RLR 218 to contend that the pleas of the respondents that the accommodation available with them in the first floor was not sufficient or suitable are justiciable points and as such, the leave to defend could not be declined. He also highlighted the fact that respondent No. 2 had not come to India and, therefore, was not entitled to file the petition under section 13-B of the Act.