ANITA SOOD Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, by which the leave to defend to contest the proceedings initiated by the Respondent/landlord under Section 13(B) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been declined. The Respondent/landlord pleaded that he is a person of Indian origin and a non-resident Indian having acquired Canadian citizenship and that he is the owner of House No. 56, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh (demised premises) which was on rent with the Petitioner and her late husband. The husband of the Petitioner having died, the tenancy rights have devolved upon all the three Petitioners who are the legal heirs of deceased Abhay Sood. They have been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. It was further the case set up by the Respondents that the demised premises were purchased by him vide sale deed dated 30.12.1971. That now he required the same for his bona fide use and occupation as he has decided to return to India and settle down here.

(2.) In response to this petition, the Respondent filed an application for leave to defend and stated therein that the Respondents had earlier filed civil, suit for ejectment of the Petitioner and Late Abhay Sood which was withdrawn by him. It was admitted that Respondent is a Canadian citizen and it was denied that he ever wanted to return to India. It was further pleaded that there are no triable issues which entitled the Petitioners to seek leave to contest the petition. It was further pleaded that Respondent has failed to prove that he is a non-resident Indian and his case falls within the ambit of Section 13(B) of the Act. It was denied that Respondent had let out the premises to the Petitioners. The premises was taken on rent by late Abhay Sood in the month of January, 1983 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. Petitioner Anita Sood had been paying rent to Smt. Ajit Kaur, mother and general power attorney of the Respondent. Later on late Abhay Sood started sending the rent by bifurcating the rent i.e. 1500/- and 1000/- per month. It was further pleaded that Anita Sood was having a separate tenancy than her husband and no rent petition has been filed against her. Abhay Sood was having a separate tenancy qua another portion of the house and after the death of Abhay Sood, the tenancy was inherited by Abhinav Sood and Ruchi Sood along with Petitioner Anita Sood. It was thus sought to be projected that the tenancy being separate, a composite petition was not maintainable.

(3.) It was also pleaded that rent was being paid by cheques to Ajit Kaur and the Respondent had never let out the premises at any point of time. It was lastly pleaded that the petition has been filed through a power of attorney which is not maintainable.