MANOHAR LAL MAHAJAN Vs. KULDIP SINGH MAHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.03.2011 whereby the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has dismissed the application of the tenant under Section 18A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'The Act') and held that there is no triable issue and accordingly ordered ejectment of the tenant from the premises in question which are measuring 4' x 18' approximately on the back side of ground floor of SCO No. 289, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. The respondent-landlord filed petition under Section 13B of the Act alleging that he was owner and landlord of the premises in question and the tenant had been inducted long back and the rate of rent was Rs. 150 per month excluding electricity and water charges. It was contended in the petition that his family consists of himself, wife, two daughters and a son and he wanted to settle his children in India and he was a NRI since the passport had been issued by the United States of America. The photocopy of the said passport was also appended and it was pleaded that there was no other property of the petitioner except the shop-cum-office in question, in which he was seeking eviction of all the tenants by filing separate petitions against each tenant so that the petitioner could start the business in the entire shop-cum-office. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had retired in the year 1987 and he wanted to settle his children in the premises in question. It was further pleaded that the building in question had been completed in the year 1973 and the completion certificate had been obtained from the competent authority Annexure P-3 and the requirement of the petitioner was bona fide.

(2.) The tenant filed leave to contest application, in which it was contended that Kuldip Singh Mahal was not the owner of the property since the rent was being deposited in the account of Sh. H.S. Mahal who had rented out the property in dispute to the tenant in the year 1973 and there was no intimation in writing to the tenant regarding the change of owner of the property. It was also pleaded that the petitioner therein was no more the citizen of India and, therefore, the petition under Section 13B of the Act was not maintainable. Reliance was also placed upon the electricity bill to show that the electricity connection was in the name of Sh. H.S. Mahal. The bona fides of the petitioner were also denied on the ground that he had been living in USA since the early sixties and, therefore, he was not likely to come back to India and having taken retirement, he and his family have been settled in USA.

(3.) The said application was contested by the owner by filing reply wherein, it was mentioned that he was the owner of the property in question and the premises were let out by Sh. H.S. Mahal on behalf of the present petitioner and was in the knowledge of the respondent and the age was not a consideration for starting any business and he wanted to settle himself along with his children in India and wanted to live in his own culture and he had sufficient funds to purchase a residential house and stay as and when the shop-cum-office fell vacant