GURDEV SINGH Vs. SATPAL SINGH MAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present revision petition, filed under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the 'Act'), by the tenant, is to the order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure P1), whereby the Rent Controller, Jalandhar has allowed the petition filed under Section 13 -B of the Act and dismissed the application under Section 18 -A and accordingly, ordered eviction from Kothi No.101, Urban Estate Phase -II, Jalandhar. The petition dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure P2) was filed on the strength of the sale deed dated 11.01.1990, which reflected the ownership of the respondent who was born in Rajasthan and worked at Kota. Later, he shifted to the G.N.D.U. Regional Centre, Jalandhar and thereafter, he had gone to the USA in the year 1991 and had kept on working in USA and now had intention of coming back to India. He had even applied for the post of Principal in Lyallpur Khalsa College, Jalandhar and his application was pending which was also attached in support of the petition. The house in question was owned by him and he had not availed of his remedy under Section 13 -B of the Act and had leased out the house to Gurbachan Singh, the father of the present petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5 and the husband of respondent No.2. The rent was being submitted to one Barkat Ram, his agent and the receipts were duly issued. The said person died in March, 2004 and thereafter, the respondents had refused to pay rent and they were also in arrears of rent, for which separate petition was filed for payment of arrears of rent @ Rs. 6000/ - per month. A Civil Suit had also been filed for injunction by Satwant Kaur, respondent No.2, the wife of Gurbachan Singh. The petitioner having no other house, was residing at house No.341, Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara, which was house of his first cousin.

(2.) THE petition was resisted by the present petitioner by filing an application under Section 18 -A of the Act, for leave to contest and the plea taken was that the respondent was not a Non Resident Indian, as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act and neither he was the owner nor he was landlord of the property. The property had been taken on rent from Barkat Ram, who was the owner and landlord and rent had been paid regularly to him by Gurbachan Singh. It was alleged that the property was in possession of the present petitioner as a tenant whereas other respondents were coming and going. There was no relationship of landlord -tenant and thus, the factor could only be determined by leading evidence.

(3.) THE application was contested by the respondent on the ground that he was an NRI and all documents were attached. The relationship had been admitted in the previous litigation, filed by the co -tenant and Barkat Ram was only an agent and the respondent had every right to get the property vacated.