USHA RANI Vs. JASWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 17.4.2012 whereby his prayer for leave to defend under Section 18 -A(4) and (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, has been declined in a petition filed under Section 13 -B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the "Rent Act") by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar. The respondent -landlord filed the eviction application under Section 13 -B of the Rent Act pleading that he is a Non -Resident Indian living in Australia for the last more than 30 years and was holding Australian passport issued by the Competent Authority. He is a person of Indian Origin and an NRI as defined under the Rent Act and thus, was entitled to take benefit of Section 13 -B of the Rent Act as amended upto date.

(2.) IT was further averred in the eviction application that the respondent is a landlord and the petitioner is a tenant in the demised portion of the property in dispute. The said property was purchased by Sh. Raghbir Singh, father of the respondent, from one Bimla Devi resident of Jalandhar City vide registered sale deed dated 25.9.1968. Said Raghbir Singh, who was exclusive owner of the demised premises died on 1.5.2000 and respondent being the only surviving child of late Sh. Raghbir Singh, inherited the said property after his death. The respondent -landlord also placed on record a copy of TSI Description Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar in his favour with regard to demised premises. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid averments, it was claimed that the respondent was the exclusive owner of the property in dispute for the last more than 5 years.

(3.) UPON notice, the petitioner -tenant appeared in the eviction application and moved an application seeking leave to defend to contest the ejectment petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable on behalf of the respondent as he does not fulfill the requirement of Section 13 -B of the Rent Act as he has got no right, title or interest in the above said property and further that the respondent -landlord does not fall within the definition of Non -Resident Indian as envisaged in Section 2(dd) of the amended Act. It was further averred in the application that the respondent is not the son of Sh. Raghbir Singh and thus, he was not entitled to file the present petition. However, it was admitted that the demised property was taken on rent from Smt. Bimla Devi and rent was paid to her during her lifetime. The respondent -landlord filed reply to the said application for leave to defend denying the averments made in the application and a prayer for dismissal of the application was made.