RAJIV CHUGH Vs. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 17.09.2011 whereby the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has dismissed the application of the petitioner-tenant for leave to contest under Section 18-A and ordered of ejectment under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(for brevity, the 'Act')and directed to hand-over the vacant possession within two months.

(2.) The landlords being 3 in number, filed Rent Petition under Section 13-B seeking ejectment of the respondent from Booth No.111, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh on the ground of personal requirement of landlord No.2, Major Kirat Singh. It was alleged that the landlord, landlord No.2 is a Non Resident Indian residing at Sanramon, California, USA and wanted to permanently settle in India and required the booth for his personal use and occupation and wanted to start his business along with his wife, Smt.Vandana. It was alleged that the landlords, in open auction held on 10.07.1985, had purchased the said site and a letter of allotment was issued in their favour on 19.09.1985. Earlier, Smt.Kanwaljit Kaur was also owner in equal share and after her death on 16.06.1996, her 25% share was also inherited by the said landlords in equal shares being husband and sons of Kanwaljit Kaur. It was pleaded that the said owners were landlords to the tune of 1/3rd share each. The said booth has been given on rent vide a registered lease deed dated 31.10.1995 for a period of 5 years from 01.05.1995 and at a monthly rent of Rs.4865/- excluding electricity and water charges. The said rent was to be payable in advance by the 7th of each month. It was agreed that after the expiry of the lease period, both the parties will execute fresh lease deed with the increase of 10% of the existing rent. However, the respondent did not execute any fresh lease deed after the expiry of the lease period. The tenant also failed to pay the property tax @ 3% from 02.11.2004 which was levied by the Municipal Corporation and the tenancy having expired on 30.04.2000, the same had not been extendedrenewed. Accordingly, it was contended that the premises were required for personal requirement of the landlord No.2 and his wife and they intend to settle in India and run their business from the said booth. The other landlords do not have any objection if the said booth site was used for personal use and occupation of landlord No. 2. The details of the other landlords being owners of other properties in Chandigarh was also mentioned and the landlord No.2 having 7% share in SCO No.10, Sector 26 and the fact of the building on rent was also mentioned. It was also mentioned that booth No.110, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh was also in the ownership of the said landlords and the said booth was on rent and the same was also required for the use and occupation by the wife of landlord No.3. It was also averred that the family members were not occupying any other similar commercial building in the urban area of Chandigarh for the purpose of business of landlord No.2 and neither had vacated any similar building without any sufficient cause.

(3.) The application under Section 18-A of the Act was filed by the petitioner-tenant for grant of leave to defend the above-said ejectment petition and it was pleaded that landlords No.1 & 3 were not Non Resident Indians and were co-sharers and the petition could not be maintained under Section 13-B of the Act and it was bad for mis-joinder of parties. The premises had been let out vide registered lease deed dated 31.10.1995 and Gurpal Singh was stated to be sole and exclusive owner of the booth in question and the landlord No.2 had no relationship of landlord-tenant with the applicant and the tenant was never apprised of the ownership of landlord No.2, and therefore, the competency of the landlord No.2 to maintain the present petition should be decided by production of evidence. The nonpayment of property tax was not a ground of eviction under Section 13-B of the Act, and therefore, the petition was not maintainable. It was not averred that the landlord No. 2 had gone to earn his livelihood or to engage in any vocation and had gone for either pleasure trip or as a dependent and therefore, did not fall under the definition of the "Non Resident Indian" and this question would have to be decided after leading evidence and he was not falling within the definition of Section 2 (dd) of the Act. The necessity of the landlords was denied and it was alleged that they own various nonresidential premises which they did not occupy to carry on business and various portions of the other commercial properties in Sector 40-C, 26 & 8- C, Chandigarh were let out out and this speaks of clear mala fide on the part of the landlords. Accordingly, it was pleaded that leave to defend should be granted as it was a case where evidence has to be laid and it was only an attempt to get the rent enhanced since the tenant had refused to enhance the rent executed between landlord No.1 and the tenant.