RAKESH SHARMA AND ORS. Vs. HARMESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of CR Nos. 2099 & 2111 of 2013, involving common questions of law and facts and since the shops are part of one common building and the tenants have been ordered to be evicted in the proceedings under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the 'Act'), filed by the respondent-NRI landlord. However, to dictate orders, facts have been taken from CR No. 2099 of 2013 titled Rakesh Sharma v. Harmesh Singh.

(2.) The present revision petition has been filed on the allegation that the respondent and Smt. Gian Kaur had purchased the land, boundaries of which have been mentioned in the rent application, vide sale deed dated 13.09.1991 and thus, he was owner to the extent of half share. Seven shops and two rooms had been constructed along with covered courtyard, toilet, bathroom and covered varendah, had been constructed on the said land as per Annexure A, the site plan. The premises had been rented out to different tenants including premises No. 5, which is shown in red colour and detailed in the site plan as Annexure B, to the present petitioner, for a sum of Rs. 1800/- per month, as per rent note dated 30.11.2009. The landlord/owner was a Non Resident Indian, as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act and was residing in Abu Dhabi since the last 40 years and originally belong to Punjab. He was staying in a foreign country for a long time was homesick and wanted to come back to India permanently. After coming back to India, he wanted to start a departmental store at Kapurthala and he required the premises in question for his personal requirement and certain additions and alterations had to be carried out and the building was to be converted into a big hall, as per Annexure C. The six tenants in the premises were to be evicted and five other petitions were being filed against the other tenants. Shops No. 1 and two rooms and the green portion of the site plan (Annexure A) were already in the possession of the landlord and he was not occupying any other premises and neither had vacated any other premises.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant filed an application for leave to contest on the ground that the landlord was not an NRI and he had no intention to settle in India and the provisions of Section 13-B were being misused. The ownership was not exclusive but was with his wife who was not an NRI and the need of the landlord was not a bona fide and he wanted to dispose of the property and a CD was relied upon where he was demanding Rs. 1.35 crores for the value of the entire 9 marlas of land, comprising of all the units. The site plan which was relied upon for the departmental store was not a sanctioned plan and there was no provision of parking and there were other departmental stores already existing. The landlord would not have rented out the premises in the year 2008 if he was to open a departmental store. The Civil Suit had been filed against his father as the tenant was threatened and he would have great difficulty in finding a new place since he was running a chemist shop. It was alleged that the landlord was owner of 3 1/2 acres of land in his native village and he had palatial triple storied house and also owned another 30 marlas plot in Grover Colony where he could open the departmental store.