POONAM KUMARI Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 24.9.20I0 of Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, whereby in an ejectment application tiled under section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the prayer of the petitioner seeking leave to contest, has been declined and consequently his eviction has been ordered from the demised premises.

(2.) Respondent-landlord sought eviction of the petitioner from the demised shop making the averments that he is an NRI and owner of the shop in dispute for a period of more than five years prior to the tiling of the eviction application and that he has returned to India and intends to settle in India and pass remaining time at his native place by living there permanently. He Wants to run the business in the demised premises and thus his requirement was bona fide for himself and his family members' need.

(3.) Upon notice petitioner tiled an application seeking leave to defend on the ground that need of the respondent landlord was not bona fide and the very conduct of the landlord shows that he wants to get the shop vacated. In the year 2004, he had attempted to take forcible possession of the shop in dispute by moving false applications to the police and the petitioner had to file civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent wherein -tire respondent filed written statement undertaking that he would eject the petitioner in accordance with law Thereafter, the respondent went back to United Kingdom and again came back to India and started harassing the petitioner by again moving false applications and the petitioner had to seek injunction again and thus the said overt act of the respondent landlord attempting to take forcible possession clearly proves that his need is not bona fide and present application under section 13-B of the Act is a pretext to eject him from the shop in dispute and in view of the aforesaid facts established on the record, the petitioner is entitled to leave to defend as he has raised triable issue regarding bona fide need of the respondent landlord and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.