MONJIT KAUR Vs. FAQIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by the petitioner-landlady, is to the order dated 06.07.2013 (Annexure P4), passed by the Rent Controller, Bathinda, wherein it has allowed the application to contest, filed under Section 18-A(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the 'Act'). The reasoning given by the Rent Controller, in its one page order, whereby the brief background of the case was given, is that there are certain grounds given in the application to give an opportunity to contest the application and therefore, in the interest of justice, the said application was allowed. Relevant portion of the order read as under:

(2.) The application was contested by filing an application to leave to contest under Section 18-A(5) of the Act, in which, various grounds were taken that the landlady was not falling under the definition of NRI, as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act as she was not born in India and was of foreign origin and the eviction proceedings were contested. An earlier petition had been filed for personal necessity, which had been dismissed as withdrawn on 14.08.2008 and that she had other shops and therefore, she was estopped by her own act and conduct.

(3.) In the reply to the application, the pleadings under Section 13-B were reiterated that she was an NRI and the sale deed in favour of her father was appended and that even if she was born in Malaysia, she would be an NRI as her father was of Indian origin and nationality and was the owner of the shop. The registered Will gave her the title on account of the death of her father and as per the family settlement, she was entitled to get the building vacated. The earlier petition was filed under ordinary law, which was withdrawn on 14.08.2008, since she was not the owner for 5 years but that would not take away her rights of special remedy and whether there was bona fide requirement and therefore, leave to contest should be declined.