AMRITA PAL JOHAL Vs. BALDEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is at the instance of the representatives of the landlord, who prosecuted a petition filed by one Gurcharan Kaur. She was NRI and her petition was founded on an averment that she wanted to establish a business in electronic goods with the assistance of her sons and grandsons. She would make a specific averment that she wanted to settle his sons and grandsons in electronic business. The petitioner died during the pendency of the suit and therefore her legal representatives were added. Leave to defend had been granted to the defendant to deny that the petitioner fulfilled the status as NRI and also as regards the contention that the petitioner's and her sons need was not established. It was specifically contended that the averment in the petition do not fulfill the requirement in law, for it was not averred anywhere that her sons or grandsons were living along with her and were dependent on her. The Rent Controller accepted the defence and dismissed the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that rejection of the petitioner's status as NRI was erroneous since the passport which was valid till the year 2004 was exhibited as evidence in Court but it had not been relied on. A petition has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 to receive the passport issued in the subsequent period in 2004 also mat would show her NRI status. The counsel would contend mat the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC would apply to revision proceedings as well. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would contest the petitioner's claim and state the objection that there is no justification for non-production of the document and it cannot be received as additional evidence.

(2.) To my mind, there will be no difficulty in receiving even the document as additional evidence, considering the fact that photocopy of the passport which was valid upto 2004 was also on record although the Rent Controller assumed that there was no document. It was an admitted case sworn through an affidavit that the petitioner had died during the pendency of the case in England and her sons were prosecuting the case. The fact that she was a person of Indian origin owning property was brought through the production of the sale deed pertaining to the property. If the son was prosecuting the case on plea that his mother died in UK, I would hold that there was proof of her NRI status.

(3.) The Court also found that the description of property had not been properly established. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner points out to the boundaries of site and points out as to how there is a congruity of the description of the property as mentioned in the petition. However, mis-description as found by the Rent Controller was that the shop immediately adjoining the demised property was a shop while the boundary given in the sale deed was with reference to the entire property including all the three shops. The eastern boundary was therefore not shown as shop No. 2 but the adjoining owner's name was shown. I have no difficulty in observing that the sale deed produced before the Court made reference only to the demised property and therefore, the finding that the petitioner had not established her ownership was also erroneous.