VIDYA PARKASH SHARMA Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHAN Kumar Puri, respondent herein, claiming to be the specified landlord of the demised premises filed an application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the 'act') seeking summary eviction of the petitioner-tenant. On notice having been served on the petitioner, he appeared in Court and filed an application under Section 18-A (4)and (5) of the Act accompanied by an affidavit seeking permission to contest the application. It was averred in affidavit, a copy whereof is attached as Annexure P-2 with the present petition, that respondent Krishan Kumar Puri was not the specified landlord nor was he the owner of the premises in dispute and a pointed reference was made to the effect that Mrs. Nimal Puri, wife of the respondent, had been accepting the rent of the demised premises from the petitioner almost continuously from July 1975 up-to-date. Certain other objections as to the format of the claim filed by the respondent were also raised by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 6-4-1992 declined the application for leave to contest, but allowed the application filed by the respondent holding that he was a specified landlord ; he appeared to be the owner of the property on account of a family partition arrived at between him and his relatives and that the requisite certificate which was required to be appended with the application under Section 13-A of the Act was appended later did not have the effect of nonsuiting the respondent. On these basis the Rent Controller found that the application of the petitioner for leave to defend under Section 18-A of the Act, deserved to be dismissed On merits, it was observed that the ingredients for the applicability of Section 13-A of the Act were made out and the landlord was entitled to succeed.

(2.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the decision of the Rent Controller that the present was not a fit case where leave to defend ought to be given to the petitioner-tenant was palpably wrong. It would be clear that the argument of the petitioner right from the very beginning was that the respondent was not the owner of the property nor was he a specified landlord In support of this argument, the petitioner had referred to the fact that the rent was being accepted by Shrimati Nirmal Puri wife of the respondent right from the inception of the tenancy. It would also be apparent that no document was produced to show that the respondent was the owner of the property and the only reliance placed was on the affidavit that was filed by him. The finding of the Rent Controller therefore that there appeared to be a family partition was based on absolutely no evidence. As a matter of fact, even the Rent Controller was unsure of himself as he repeatedly in the course of his order held that the respondent appeared to be the owner of the property. It is to be noted that when a triable issues is raised by a tenant, it is incumbent on the Rent Controller to grant leave to defend. As already indicated above, such issues did arise from the very facts of the case.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed ; the order impugned is set aside and a direction is issued to the Rent Controller to redetermine the matter after allowing the petitioner leave to defend the application under Section 13-A filed by the respondent. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Patiala, on 24-11-1992.