NEERA KHETI Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed against order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara whereby the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, the 'Act') filed by the NRI landlord has been allowed after full-fledged trial and the tenant had been ordered to be evicted and directed to hand-over the vacant possession of the premises in question within a period of 3 months. The landlord filed the petition for ejectment of the tenant from the building known as 'Atwal Building' shown in red colour in the site plan and the boundaries of which were depicted in the ejectment petition. The landlord-respondent, in his petition, pleaded that he had purchased the property along with his sons, Gurmajor Singh and Jasbir Singh and his wife, Nasib Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 27.05.1971 and Nasib Kaur died on 06.04.2002, and therefore, the petitioner was the co-owner of the said property along with the other joint owners from 27.05.1971. It was alleged that the landlord was a non-resident Indian and temporarily settled in England and the other co-owners are the sons of the non-resident Indian, copy of the passport was appended with the petition. The possession was, accordingly, sought on the ground that he requires the premises in question for opening a hospital in the name of his wife, Nasib Kaur. It was contended that his daughter-in-law was running a nursing home in the name and style of "Raj Nursing Home, 31-35 Osterley Park Road, Southhall, Middx, UB2 4 BN (England)". The landlord wanted to open a hospital in the property in dispute and since there was suitable space for hospital the landlord required the property for himself and his family members for residence purpose and for starting a big hospital for which he had good capacity to spend foreign exchange. It was also contended that the landlord had already filed a petition for ejectment against the tenants of 3 shops which were part and parcel of the building in question and he had filed no other petition under Section 13-B of the Act.

(2.) The leave to contest having been granted, the written statement was filed by the tenant and it was pleaded that the landlord does not fall under the ambit of Non-Resident Indian and he was a citizen holding a British passport and was not a citizen of India and could only visit India after obtaining Visa, and therefore, he could not get the premises vacated for his daughter-in-law and was estopped by his act and conduct as he has shown his desire to dispose of the property in dispute. Reference was made to letter dated 28.11.1978 wherein he has written a letter to his 5 tenants to enhance the monthly rent of the respective portions in their possession in the building known as Atwal Building and that he would not ensue any legal proceedings against them. The relationship of landlord-tenant was also contested on the ground that he was not the owner of the suit property and he should prove the same whether the suit property falls in khasra No. 3826 bearing khewat No. 1 khatauni No. 78 as the said khasra number fell to the Provincial Government and the landlord had no right and title in the said khasra number. It was pleaded that the sale deed propounded by the landlord did not relate to khasra No. 3826. It was, however, admitted that the daughter-in-law of the landlord was running a nursing home in United Kingdom but it was denied that the landlord wanted to open a hospital in the premises in question.

(3.) The landlord filed a replication and denied the factum of letter dated 28.11.1978. The allegation that khasra No. 3826 fell to Provincial Government was denied by alleging that jamabandi is not a document of title and the landlord had rented out the disputed property and the tenants used to pay rent. The sale deed vide which the landlord purchased the property in question was a registered document and the property was a few yards from the office of SDM and Patwari Halka and no official had raised any objection that the property was the ownership of Provincial Government. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the Provincial Government had no concern with the disputed property and the landlord was the owner cum landlord on the strength of a registered sale deed and he required the premises for his own use and occupation.