GURPAL RAI AND ORS Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.1505, 1506 and 1510 of 2012 as the said petitions pertain to the same landlady and shops are part of the same building and the question involved is similar in all the three petitions since the ejectment under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, the Rent Act') had been ordered by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar after declining the application for leave to contest under Section 18-A of the Rent Act. However, the facts have been extracted from Civil Revision No.1505 of 2012. The landlady filed an application for ejectment from shop no.3, which was part and parcel of House No.69, Street No.2, Preet Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar as shown red in the site plan which is attached pleading that she was a NRI residing at 547, Fern forest Drive, Brampton, ON, L6R OV9, Canada and was born at Rawalpindi, Pakistan on 1.6.1944 and upon partition of the country she settled in India. The landlady alleged that she became citizen and holder of Canadian Passport bearing No. CAN WS 257399 and passport was issued from Mississauge, Canada and the identity card was also issued by the NRI Sabha, Punjab bearing membership No.JAL/WW/1828. It was accordingly pleaded that the tenant had been inducted vide rent agreement dated 28.2.1989 at a monthly rent of Rs.375/-per month by the landlady through her husband and the rent had been enhanced at Rs.10/-per year and the landlady was owner on the basis of sale deed dated 8.8.1977. The photo copy of the sale deed was attached with the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act. It was contended that after the purchase of the property, the landlady had constructed residential house and five shops which were rented out to different tenants including the petitioner herein and the landlady required five shops including the shop in dispute which was part and parcel of the House No.69, Street No.2, Preet Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar for her personal use and occupation and she intended to carry out the business of sale of readymade furniture by reconstructing the showroom after demolition of the five shops upon vacation and she also intended to settle in India permanently. It was pleaded that she was entitled to seek immediate possession of the premises for her personal use and the landlady had not earlier got vacated any other property and had no other property within the municipal limits of Jalandhar except the property bearing House No.69, Street No.2, Preet Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar. It was also mentioned that ejectment petitions against the other four tenants of the aforesaid building were being filed.

(2.) On service of summons, the tenant-petitioner herein filed an application for leave to contest on the ground that the landlady was not owner of the property and her husband Harjit Singh was the owner of the property and he had let out the same to the tenant. The sale deed placed on record pertains to some other property in dispute and site plan placed on record was not correct and did not describe the correct position of the site and the alleged sale deed did connect with the property in dispute and the landlady had not shown the entire property and had not shown the area, if any, under her possession. The two portions of the property which fell towards western side of the shop in question were also on rent where two tenants namely Jasvinder Singh and recently Harjit Singh had vacated and premises again had been let out to another tenant. It was also pleaded that the bonafide necessity was missing since the whole family of the landlady had gone to Canada and was settled there including her sons and daughters. It was further pleaded that ingredients of Section 13-B of the Rent Act were not fulfilled and she had not given any undertaking that she would not sell or re-let the premises further after taking possession. The bonafide part was stressed on the ground that the landlady and her husband were of advanced age and hot and humid weather of Punjab did not suit them as the landlady had gone for the last 20 years to Canada in a very congenial atmosphere and she was more than 65 years of age and was unable to move and was not in a position to carry on the business. The details of the business which were to be done had neither been pleaded nor capability of doing the business had been pleaded which were leading factors to hold that the landlady did not require the premises and therefore, triable issues were raised. The petition having been filed long after the enactment showed that the landlady was not willing to settle in India. Lastly, it was alleged that the landlady was owner of the property situated at Kirti Nagar, Jalandhar and list would be submitted showing that the landlady did not require the building.

(3.) The application was contested by filing reply by the landlady and it was contended that the sale deed had been placed on record and her husband was not the owner and the site plan attached was correct and pertains to the property in question. The factum of the husband letting out one portion after getting it vacated was denied and it was pleaded that the petition had not been filed with malafide intention and there was bonafide necessity and all the ingredients of Section 13-B of the Rent Act were fulfilled. The age of person was not a bar to start business and it was averred that the landlady used to visit India once a year and used to stay for long period and in the habit of living in this weather and it was incorrect that she is unable to move and carry out her business and was healthy and having sound mind and capable of doing business of the sale of readymade furniture by reconstructing a showroom. The allegations of being owner of any other property at Kirti Nagar, Jalandhar were denied.