KUNDAN SINGH Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition by the landlord-petitioner has been filed under Section 18-A(8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, the Act) challenging order dated 21.5.2003 passed by the Rent Controller, Phillaur granting leave to contest to the tenant-petitioner. The principal ground for granting leave to contest is that the landlord-respondent has set up the plea of oral partition in March 1992 which is falsified by the fact that in March, 2000, the landlord-respondent alongwith his other brothers have jointly filed an application which would show that they were the joint owners. The other ground taken for grant of leave is that the landlord- respondent has not been able to prove that he is a Non Resident Indian although he is holding a British Passport and his place of birth has been mentioned as Adda Goraya.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the present petition are that the landlord-petitioner has filed the Rent Petition No. 4 of 2003 on 15.2.2003 before the Rent Controller, Phillaur under Section 13-B of the Act claiming to be a non-resident person of Indian Origin and asserting that he requires the demised premises. After notice was issued, the tenant-respondent, filed an application seeking leave to contest which has been allowed by the Rent Controller as some intricate questions of law and facts have been raised. The operative part of the order of the Rent Controller reads as under :-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller because there is a triable issue raised by the tenant- respondent by pleading that the landlord-petitioner does not fulfill the requirement of Section 13-B of the Act as the period of five years after acquiring the ownership of the property by him did not elapse. The plea of the landlord-petitioner that there was an oral partition in March, 1992 is open to serious doubts. Once the tenant-respondent has taken the stand that the landlord-petitioner alongwith his other brothers had earlier filed an application in March, 2000 which would indicate that the demised shop was in joint ownership of the landlord-petitioner and his other brothers. It is well settled that if a triable issue of this nature is raised, then the Rent Controller is within its jurisdiction to grant leave to contest because such an issue could not be disposed of in summary proceedings. For the aforementioned view, reliance could be placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Rita Lal v. Raj Kumar Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Rent) 463 (SC) : AIR 2002 SC 3341, Vashu Deo v. Balkishan, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 343 (SC) : (2002)2 SCC 50 and Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nang, (1983)1 SCC 301. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant petition.