SHEELA RANI Vs. MINDER KAUR ALIAS MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the legal representatives of tenant Shadi Lal against the order of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar dated 13.9.2011 whereby the Rent Controller, Jalandhar had ordered ejectment under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act") after leave to contest had been granted and evidence between the parties was led pertaining to building bearing House No. 1166 (Corp. No. of the house EG-35), Mohalla Sant Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar shown in red colour, the boundaries of which are mentioned in the head note of the ejectment petition. The respondent-landlady filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act regarding the shop in dispute on the ground that she and Raksha Devi vide registered sale deed dated 28.9.1968 had purchased the building in question and after purchase of the property, the landlady and Raksha Devi had constructed 9 shops and also residential building in the alleged property. It was pleaded that in a family settlement 4-1/2 shops including the shop in dispute and portion of the residential building behind the above said shops fell to the share of the landlady and she became the exclusive owner of the said portion. The shop in dispute had been rented out by the landlady to the respondent-tenant and the respondent-tenant lastly paid the rent in the month of July, 2003 @ Rs. 2000/- and had not paid rent thereafter. The landlady pleaded that she wanted to settle in India permanently and also wanted to start her own business of selling readymade furniture and in order to sell and display the readymade furniture, the landlady required a big showroom which was to be constructed over the 4-1/2 shops owned by the petitioner including the shop in dispute for running the readymade furniture showroom. It was also alleged that the landlady filed an ejectment petition against other tenant also and shop in dispute as well as other shops for which the ejectment on the ground of personal necessity under Section 13-B of the Rent Act was sought was formed part and parcel of the one building bearing House No. 1166 (Corp. No. of the House EG-35), Mohalla Sant Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar. The landlady claimed to be NRI having gone to Austria in the year 2001 as immigrant for employment for uncertain period and had been issued a Permanent Resident Card and was born in village Chanian, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar on 1.2.1935 and was holder of Indian Passport and used to visit India once or after 2 years to look after her property and to see the family members. The attested photocopy of the passport and permanent resident card were appended with the ejectment petition. Accordingly, it was pleaded that shop in dispute was under the occupation of the respondent-tenant and in shop on the western side of the shop in dispute, Mukesh Kumar grand son of the landlady was in occupation and on the western side of Mukesh Kumar, there was shop in occupation of Dr. Azmer Singh and on the western side of Dr. Azmer Singh, shop is also under the occupation of Mukesh Kumar, who was presently using both the shops for running the business to sell the cosmetics. The landlady required all 4-1/2 shops for running the showroom to display and sell the furniture and would construct a show room over the area of 4-1/2 shops after demolishing all the shops. This was to be done after the vacation of the shops in dispute as presently the shops were in occupation of Dr. Azmer Singh and Jagan Nath since shops under the occupation of Mukesh Kumar were not sufficient for running the showroom or to display or sell the furniture. The business of selling the cosmetics by Mukesh Kumar grandson of the landlady in both the shops was fetching no income and Mukesh Kumar was also ready and willing to work with the landlady for running the furniture showroom and wanted to close the business of selling the cosmetics. The landlady as well as Mukesh Kumar had good experience in dealing with the readymade furniture. Accordingly, shop in question and other shops were required for personal use and occupation as the landlady intended to start the business to sell the readymade furniture at the showroom along with her grandson Mukesh Kumar. Accordingly, it was pleaded that neither the landlady had occupied any other shop nor she had got vacated any shop within the urban area of Municipal limit of Jalandhar City and Mukesh Kumar grandson of the landlady was in occupation of two shops out of 4-1/2 shops.

(2.) The tenant had filed an application for leave to contest under Section 18-A of the Rent Act which was allowed and the Rent Controller had permitted the tenant to contest the petition on merits.

(3.) The tenant in the written statement filed raised various preliminary objections that there was no landlady called Minder Kaur and petition had been wrongly filed and petitioner was trying to project herself as Minder Kaur for the purpose of filing the ejectment petition and petition was liable to be dismissed with special compensatory costs. The landlady had no concern or connection with the property in question and neither she was owner nor had any right, title or interest. It was also pleaded that the landlady was neither NRI nor she had gone abroad for the purpose of employment nor become owner of any property within five years before filing of the present petition and petition was liable to be dismissed with costs. The relationship of the landlady and tenant was denied and it was also denied that the landlady along with Raksha Devi had purchased the building in question vide sale deed dated 28.9.1968. The factum of construction of nine shops over the land in dispute was also denied and it was alleged that there was no sanctioning of any plan for raising of any construction and it was incorrect that there was any partition or family settlement vide which any shop had fallen to the share of the landlady and that the landlady had become exclusive owner of 4-1/2 shops and the portion of the residential building behind the shops. The shop in question had never been rented out to the respondent-tenant by the landlady and rate of rent at Rs. 2000/- per month was also denied. It was also denied that the rent had not been paid with effect from July, 2003. The site plan was not correct and legal and the partial ejectment of building in question could not be allowed. The landlady was estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the petition and the petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act was not maintainable and not accompanied by any affidavit.