SHUBH ISHYA DEVI Vs. BIHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 18-A(8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 filed by the landlady-petitioner to challenge the order of the Rent Controller dated 30.10.2003 granting leave to contest to the tenant-respondent. The principal ground for allowing the application for leave to contest is that the tenant-respondent has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the landlady-petitioner alleging that she has already entered into an agreement to sell the demised shop to one Khushi Ram.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as disclosed in the memorandum of petition are that the landlady-petitioner is owner of the demised premises which was rented to the tenant-respondent at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. The rent was payable in advance every month. According to the assertions made by the landlady- petitioner she is Non-Resident Indian and has returned to India for permanent settlement since October, 2001. It has been pleaded that she wishes to run the dispensary in the demised premises. The tenant-respondent filed an application for grant of leave to contest the ejectment petition by pleading that the landlady-respondent is not a Non-Resident Indian and it was further alleged that she is likely to sell the property at higher price after his ejectment. It was also pleaded that the tenant-petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that the landlady-petitioner has entered into an agreement to sell the demised shop to one Khushi Ram. The learned Rent Controller accepted the application of the tenant-respondent and granted leave to contest by holding as under :-

(3.) MR . Pardeep Bhandari, learned counsel for the tenant-respondent has argued that once the bona fide of the landlady has become doubtful, the leave to contest has to be granted because it is only at a proper trial that the document like agreement to sell could be tendered in evidence and the intention of the landlady-petitioner could be exposed. In a summary proceeding, as contemplated under Section 18(A) such evidence could not be adduced and the rights of the tenant-respondent would be completely prejudiced.