PARVEEN KAUR Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH DALER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners (tenants) are in revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (herein-after referred to as the Act) against the findings in the order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby although the eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act filed by the respondent (landlord)-Bhupinder Singh Daler has been dismissed on the ground that he is not owner for last five years, however, he has been acknowledged as the owner-landlord. Learned Counsel for the petitioners (tenants) has vehemently argued that although the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the petition filed by the respondent (landlord), however, certain findings have been given in their favour without their being any evidence on record which has led to prejudice to the rights of the petitioners (ten-ants). It has been further argued that the learned Rent Controller had wrongly held respondent (landlord) to be owner of the demised premises and dismissed the petition only for the reason that he has not been able to prove his ownership for the last five years after death of his mother Jasbir Kaur. It has further been argued that in the present case the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar has committed grave illegality by not appreciating the fact that respondent (landlord) had never acted as landlord qua the property in question and that petitioner No. 1 (tenant No. 1) was inducted as tenant by one Joginder Singh Bhatia. It was thus argued that the said findings are absolutely perverse which would affect the rights of the petitioners (tenants) if in case any future litigation accrues among the parties, as it is a categoric stand taken by the petitioners (tenants) that Bhupinder Singh Daler i.e. respondent No. 1 is not the landlord of the property in question.

(2.) On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 (landlord) has argued that the learned Rent Controller had rightly held that the petitioners are tenants under respondent No. 1 as they have themselves admitted Jasbir Kaur to be their landlady in an ejectment application filed by her which was decided by the court of Sh. R.K. Sharma, Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide order Ex. R-3. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to deny Jasbir Kaur to be their landlady and after her death the present respondent No. 1 (her son) to be their landlord because a Will dated 7.6.1990 was executed by Jasbir Kaur, through which the present respondent No. 1 become the owner of the property by operation of law. However, it was fairly submitted that the learned Rent Controller had rightly come to the conclusion that the ejectment application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 13-B of the Act was not maintainable at this stage because Jasbir Kaur had died on 01.02.2004 and the petition for ejectment under Section 13-B of the Act was filed on 09.08.2005 whereby the respondent No. 1 landlord had filed a premature ejectment application under Section 13-B of the Act because a bare reading of the provision itself shows that to maintain a petition under Section 13-B a person has to be owner of a property for the last five years, which in the present case is not the situation as respondent No. 1-landlord had become the owner only one year back. Thus it was argued that no interference is warranted in the findings returned by learned Rent Controller.

(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that earlier an ejectment application was filed by Jasbir Kaur (mother of respondent No. 1) wherein it was admitted by the petitioners that Jasbir Kaur is their landlady. It is further not in dispute that respondent No. 1 is son of Jasbir Kaur. Although a dispute has been raised regarding execution of Will by Jasbir Kaur, however, the said fact also will not prejudice the rights of respondent No. 1 as if Jasbir Kaur is the owner of the property and dies intestate still respondent No. 1 would have inherited a part of the property if there are certain other legal heirs left by Jasbir Kaur. Dehors the said fact, in a petition which is to be filed by a landlord under Section 13-B of the Act, a landlord is always required to prove as to whether he is the owner of the property for the past five years or not and also the fact that he is an NRI as covered under the definition of the Rent Act. These two ingredients are sine qua non and hence there is no escape from the above mentioned two ingredients even if a fresh petition is filed. Furthermore, in the present case this Court is of the opinion that the learned Rent Controller had rightly come to the conclusion that prima facie it is proved on record that respondent No. 1-landlord is the owner of the property. In a rent application only a prima facie proof is required qua the ownership of the property where a person claims to be a landlord on this basis and the court adjudicating the matter under the Rent Act has to only hold an inquiry so as to be satisfied that prima facie ownership/title of a person claiming to be a landlord is proved or not.