CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. HARBAX SINGH KALSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil revision is directed against the order: dated 4.1.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ferozepur, whereby the application moved by the respondent-landlord under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Rent Act' for short) has been allowed directing the petitioner-tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises forming part of building No. 26/6, Old Bus Adda, Talwandi Bhai, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, to the respondent-landlord, within a period of one month from the date of the order, failing which the landlord shall be entitled to get the possession through the agency of the Court. Necessary factual background of the case, when put in a narrow compass, is that the respondent-landlord is a Non-resident India ('NRI' for short). He appointed Surinder Pal Singh son of Dr. Balwant Singh as his attorney by way of special power of attorney dated 7.4.2005 for the purpose of filing the application under Section 13-B of the Rent Act against the tenant, petitioner herein, seeking vacant possession of the shop forming part of building No. 26/6, Old Bus Adda, Talwandi Bhai, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. Accordingly, the application under Section 13-B of the Rent Act was instituted as case No. 23 on 15.06.2005 in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Ferozepur. It was stated in the application that there were three shops adjoining each other forming part of No. 26/6, Old Bus Adda, Talwandi Bhai, Tehsil and District Ferozepur and the same were jointly owned by Lal Singh, Gurbax Singh and Harbax Singh sons of Kirpal Singh, resident of Talwandi Bhai. They have 1/3rd share each. The petitioner was in occupation of the demised shop as tenant under Harbax Singh-landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- and has been running a STD-PCO in it. The tenancy was on monthly basis. All the three co-owners namely Harbax Singh, Gurbax Singh and Lal Singh have since effected oral partition on 31.05.2004, the shop on the northern side fell to the share of Lal Singh, middle shop, which was occupied by Charanjit Singh-petitioner, fell to the share of Harbax Singh-respondent, whereas the shop on the southern side, in occupation' of one Radhe Sham, fell to the share of Gurbax Singh. Consequent upon partition and by operation of law, Charanjit Singh-petitioner became tenant of respondent-Harbax Singh Kalsi, on the previous terms and conditions.

(2.) It was further averred that respondent was NRI and was residing in Canada since year 1971-72. He has decided to return to India and settle at Talwandi Bhai, which is his parental town. He wanted to return to India in the advanced stage of his life and it was his desire to spend his last days of life at his own mother land. Thus, the demised shop was required for his own use and he was entitled for immediate possession of the demised shop. The landlord was not in occupation of any other non-residential building for the purpose of his use in the urban area of Talwandi Bhai.

(3.) Notice of the application was issued by the learned Rent Controller and pursuant thereto, the petitioner-tenant appeared. He moved an application under Section 18-A of the Rent Act, seeking leave of the Court to contest the application under Section 13-B filed by the landlord-respondent. Petitioner took objection disputing the status of the landlord-respondent as NRI. He further objected that the landlord does not fall within the scope of Section 2(dd) of the Rent Act. He also pointed out that the landlord does not require the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. If he puts the requirement, that was not hona fide because he was not likely to shift to such a small place. It was not excepted from a man of the NRI status to live in such a small town like Talwandi Bhai. Petitioner further objected that the fact that landlord has appointed Surinder Pal Singh as his attorney, with a view to file the application under Section 13-B of the Rent Act, clearly shows that the landlord had not returned to India. The petitioner concluded by submitting that he was a poor man and it was difficult for him to start his business from a new place. He prayed for granting the permission to contest the application under Section 13-B of the Rent Act. The respondent-landlord fled his reply to the application tiled by the petitioner, seeking leave of the Court to contest the application under Section 13-B of the Rent Act.