BASANT KUMAR Vs. ROMESH KUMAR DEORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cost paid, as directed. The petition for leave to defend in an action taken from the landlord under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was declined and the tenant is the revision petitioner before this court. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant states that the Rent Controller has wrongly assumed that the landlord was holder of an Indian Passport, while the document shows that it was being issued by the Government of USA and he is a USA citizen. The second contention is that he is still residing in a foreign country and he has not returned to India to invoke Section 13-B of the Act. The third objection is that the landlord has not disclosed the existence of other property than the petition mentioned property and the existence of other property has been brought out through the records filed before the court below. There is, therefore, a clear betrayal of want of bona fides. It is also contended that the bona fides are suspect by the fact that the petitioner is Vice President of American Express-a renowned credit card company and the property that was sought for eviction is a small shop in Kotkapura-a small town in Punjab. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant would also state that the Rent Controller committed a serious error in procedure by simultaneously ordering summary ejectment after declining the leave to defend without adverting to the legal requirements of the needs before ordering eviction.

(2.) Learned senior counsel would point out that the documents filed by the landlord would indicate that the suit property came to him in a family settlement and that his own parents were from India and he is a person of Indian origin. He would say that he had actually come to India to present the petition. His bona fides will be evidenced from the fact that the demised shop is stated to be the most suitable premise and he has not stated that it was the only premises that he had.

(3.) I do not think it is necessary to pick several holes in the contentions raised by the tenant. It is sufficient if I may merely point out to one circumstance that should be taken for the benefit of the tenant to grant the relief. It is a fact that the landlord has stated in the petition thus:--