TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition filed by the tenant is directed against the order dated 22.12.2011 whereby leave to contest under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act") was dismissed and accordingly, the order of eviction was passed in respect of disputed property described in the head note of the petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act and the tenant was directed to hand over vacant possession within three months.

(2.) The landlord-respondent filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant-petitioner from a residential House No.440, Block I, Bhai Randhir Nagar, Ludhiana. In the petition filed through his attorney Rajinder Singh, it was alleged that the landlord purchased a plot measuring 150 sq. yards from the Ludhiana Improvement Trust vide sale deed dated 20.7.1992 and he had completed the construction of his residential house over this plot in the year 1995. Copy of the sale deed was attached with the petition.

(3.) The house in question had been let out with effect from 8.5.2003 at the rate of Rs.4300/- per month with an increase of 5% per annum and a rent note dated 16.5.2003 about the tenancy of the house had been executed and, therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The landlord had alleged that he was Non Resident Indian (for short "NRI") along with his wife Jasbir Kaur and two unmarried sons Pawandeep Singh and Damandeep Singh and shifted to U.S.A. in the year 1999 and were living together at the address given in the heading of the ejectment petition since then. Jasbir Kaur, wife of the landlord and Damandeep Singh, minor son of the landlord have to come to their motherland India and to reside in the house in dispute. They have to settle and perform affairs of their family like engagements, marriages and other ceremonies, duties towards their relations and such like so many matters while residing in the house in dispute. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the house was required for his use and that of his family members consisting of his wife Jasbir Kaur and two sons Damandeep Singh aged 16 years and Pawandeep Singh aged 19 years and family of the landlord did not own any other house within the municipal limits of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and neither have kept any other house. It was accordingly pleaded that landlord was owner of the house in dispute for more than five years at the time of institution of the petition and the Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition. The tenant had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against him for restraining him from taking forcible possession of the house in dispute which was fixed for exparte evidence. The landlord was filing application for setting aside the exparte proceedings.