RAKESH RISHI Vs. BAKHSHISH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 27.10.2012 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby his prayer for leave to defend under Section 18-A (4) & (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rent Act') in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Rent Act has been declined.

(2.) The respondent-landlady filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act and sought ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises i.e. Front Mezzanine portion of SCO No.112-13, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. In the eviction petition, it was averred that she had gone to England along with her husband namely Sh.Harbans Singh Boora after marriage, who had settled there and was carrying on a business. It has been further averred that the property in question, after the demise of her husband, has been transferred in her name on the basis of a Will and now she has returned to India and the premises in dispute is required by her for her own use for business purposes as well as for establishment of her family. She is holding a British passport and is being looked after by her only son. In the eviction petition, the respondent-landlady has further asserted that there is no other tenant in the entire building and the first, second and third floors of the said building are lying vacant. The premises on Front Mezzanine portion of SCO No.112-13 connected with the stairs adjoining the portion of M/s Jeweller Talwar Sons are on rent with the petitioner for the last more than ten years and the petitioner is carrying on a business of tailoring under the name and style of M/s Rishi Tailors. A lease-deed was executed on 02.01.2008 between the parties and the petitioner was paying rent @ Rs. 6000 per month with effect from 01.04.2010 as per the terms and conditions contained in the lease-deed which was for a period of five years with effect from 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2012. The respondent-landlady requires the building including the demised premises for her own use and occupation. She further stated that first, second and third floors of the building in question were on rent with the office of Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh and they were paying rent @ Rs. 3,07,746 per month; however, they have vacated the said portion of the building and the same is lying vacant. The respondent-landlady and her son, who had returned to India in November 2010, had requested the petitioner as well as the other tenants in the building to vacate the premises as she was in personal need of the entire building. It is her further case that she has not filed any similar petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act with respect to any other property except the present building of which she was owner for more than five years. Since the petitioner had refused the request of the respondent-landlady, necessity arose to file the instant eviction petition.

(3.) Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant appeared and filed an application for leave to defend, admitting that he was in occupation of Front Mezzanine portion of SCO No.112-13, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh (adjoining portion of M/s Jeweller Talwar sons) since 1974. The petitioner sought leave to defend the eviction petition on various grounds submitting that the respondent-landlady was residing in United Kingdom for the last more than 50 years and was a British citizen. The respondent-landlady and her son, who is also a British citizen, are having settled business in UK and are earning huge income there as well as rental income from the buildings in India and the agricultural land. The respondent-landlady is a foreign national and the same is not included in the definition of 'Non Resident Indian' because an NRI is a person who is an Indian citizen ordinarily and is residing outside India holding an Indian passport. Since the respondent-landlady is neither an Indian citizen nor she holds an Indian passport, she does not fulfill the basic ingredients of being NRI, and therefore, she would not be entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 13-B of the Rent Act. The petitioner further mentioned in the application for leave to defend that such a question on similar facts is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.189 of 2011 and thus, the instant eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the Rent Act is not maintainable. It is further case of the petitioner that provisions of Section 13-B and Section 2 (dd) of the Rent Act are contrary to the provisions of the Citizenship Act as well as Constitution of India and various Notifications issued by the Government of India; and are liable to be struck-down. The petitioner further raised a ground that the eviction petition was not maintainable as the Notification dated 09.10.2009, vide which Section 13-B of the Rent Act has been extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, is illegal and without jurisdiction; and thus, the extension of the said law as made applicable to the UT Chandigarh itself is bad and therefore, the petition filed on behalf of the respondent-landlady under Section 13-B of the Rent Act is not maintainable. A further ground has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-landlady does not fulfill the requirement of Section 2(dd) of the Rent Act. Moreover, the respondent-landlady under the threat of the said provisions has forced the tenants to enhance the rent of the building in question manifold. Even the respondent-landlady has renewed the tenancy, though no written agreement was executed. It has been further submitted that the tenancy in question is contractual, which is in existence and as such the eviction petition is not maintainable during the subsistence of contract/agreement. The petitioner has further submitted in the application for leave to defend that the upper floors of the building in question have already been vacated by the tenants on 30.09.2009 and are still lying vacant; and in case the respondent-landlady desires to use the building in question for her own use and occupation, she would have occupied the upper floors and commenced the business, whereas she has advertised to lease out the upper floors on enhanced rent and thus, requirement of the respondent-landlady was neither bonafide nor genuine and under the garb of eviction petition she is trying to pressurize the petitioner and the other tenants to increase the rent manifold, which is otherwise not permissible under law.