DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. NACHHATAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant. He is aggrieved because, order dated 18.2.2020 ordering his eviction from the demised premises has been passed in a petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act').

(2.) The demised premises is a shop in the front portion of property bearing No.B-XIX-1342 situated in Haibowal Khurd, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The petitioner has been the tenant in the said shop since 18.7.1990 when a rent note was executed between him and the original owner, namely, Surjit Singh. The landlord-respondent purchased property bearing No.B-XIX-1342 from Surjit Singh vide registered sale deed dated 13.6.1995. It appears that Surjit Singh had also sought eviction of the petitioner through a petition filed under Section 13-A of the Rent Act before he sold the property, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.7.1995.

(3.) In response to the eviction petition, the tenant-petitioner sought leave to defend. The same was declined by the Rent Controller vide order dated 22.8.2012 and the order was upheld by the High Court. A special leave petition was preferred by the tenant which was converted into CA-10528-2014. The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court of India vide order dated 25.11.2014 on the ground that the tenant had raised triable issues regarding the bona fides of the landlord-respondent and thus, leave to defend should have been granted. Consequently, the tenant-petitioner filed his written statement, wherein apart from other facts, it was stated that there had been previous litigation between the parties which showed that the need was not bona fide. The landlord-respondent had filed a petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent on 30.10.1996 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2004. During the pendency thereof, a petition for eviction on the ground of material alteration was filed on 1.8.2001, which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.1.2006. A third petition for eviction on the ground of subletting was filed on 8.5.2003 and the same has also been dismissed. This establishes the mala fides of the landlord-respondent. The mala fides are further evident from the fact that an attempt was made by the landlord-respondent to illegally interfere in the possession of the tenant-petitioner which led to the registration of FIR No. 18 dated 4.3.1996 registered at Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 456 and 427 IPC. This was soon after the landlord-respondent had purchased the premises in dispute and the fact conclusively shows the intention of the landlord to evict the tenant by hook and crook. The landlord retired from Government service in the year 2006 and he could have sought eviction of the tenant under Section 13-A of the Rent Act, in case, his need was bona fide, however, no such attempt was made by him.