RAVINDER PAUL MOHINDRA Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by a Non-Resident Indian (for short 'the NRI') Landlord under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') challenging the validity of order dated 5-8-2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana allowing the application of tenant-respondent under Section 18(5) of the Act for leave to contest the ejectment petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act filed by the petitioner-landlord.

(2.) Records of the case have been called in order to determine whether the order of the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana has been passed in accordance with law. Vide the Impugned order the learned Rent Controller has allowed the application for grant of leave to contest on the grounds that (i) there is a dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent, which question has to be decided by adducing the evidence as admittedly the ejectment application has been filed by the petitioner alleging himself to be the owner and the landlord; (ii) in the application under Section 13-B of the Act filed by the petitioner as an NRI, it is nowhere stated that his intention is to permanently settle in India, the said point is also to be decided by the learned Rent Controller by giving opportunity to the tenant for contesting the petition; (iii) as the petitioner is alleged to have sufficient vacant land so the property given in the subject-matter cannot be termed as property which is required by the petitioner for his personal necessity, ground of bona fide requirement of the petitioner cannot be decided without hearing or giving an opportunity to lead evidence on the points raised by the respondent-applicant, and (iv) the verification of the contents of the affidavit of the tenant has to be seen at the time of the conclusion of the petition after giving an opportunity to the tenant but the learned Rent Controller had expressed the opinion that the case can be properly adjudicated after going through the cross- examination of the witnesses and the assertion of the petitioner is required to be decided after adducing of evidence by the tenant. As such, there are reasonable grounds available in defence to the respondent-tenant to contest the petition.

(3.) Shri M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire approach of the learned Rent Controller in determining the question regarding the grant of leave to contest the application is contrary to the intention of the legislature while Incorporating Sections 13-B, 19(2-B) in the Act. The amendment was introduced in the Act to create a special class of NRI landlords and repose special right to them to recover immediate possession from the tenants occupying their premises, if the said premises were required by them. It was argued that the scope of right of tenant to defend the claim under Section 13-B of the Act for ejectment is very limited and the tenant gets a right to defend the claim of the landlord only if he is able to show that the landlord in the proceedings is not an NRI landlord, that he is not the owner thereof or that his ownership is not for the required period of five years before the initiation of proceedings and that the landlord's requirement is not genuine. There is a legal presumption in proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act that the requirement of the landlord is genuine and bona fide. The mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine. The tenant will be required to show and prima facie prove that the landlord does not in fact or in law require the demised premises by some strong and cogent evidence and the inquiry would be confined to Section 13-B of the Act and other aspects shall be considered by the learned Rent controller.