NARINDER SINGH Vs. KIRPA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against he order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide which the application filed by the petitioner was rejected and application filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) was allowed and the petitioners were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of the order. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner filed petition under Section 13-B of the Act for ejectment of the respondents from the building bearing No. 6-A near Sodal Mandir, Sodal Nagar, Jalandhar. It was alleged in the application that the respondent No. 1 Manjit Singh was inducted as a tenant vide agreement dated 26.3.1979 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- for a fixed period and thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,500/ per month which was paid up to 31.3.1997. It was the case of the petitioners that they were owner/landlords qua the building premises in dispute and that the property in dispute was ancestral property of the petitioners and mutation of the property has already been sanctioned in the name of the petitioners on the basis of inheritance. The petitioners are NRIs and have been residing in England and that the petitioners alongwith their sons were running business of import and export in the name of Dhillon Trimming Company. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to know that respondent No. 1 has sub-let the premises in dispute and parted with possession to one Narender Singh, Darshpal Singh and Mohinder Pal Singh, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 against the terms of the agreement without the knowledge of the petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners that the respondent also made additions, and alterations in the property in dispute. The case set up the petitioner was that Manjit Singh, respondent No. 1 has shifted to new premises i.e. 10-A, New Grain Market, G.T. Road, Jalandhar where he has opened a store in the name of Punja Khad Store by running business there. The ejectment was sought on the grounds that the premises in dispute were required by the petitioners for their personal use and occupation as they have decided to settle in Jalandhar City. They have decided to settle in room in the building in dispute and start their own business of import and export.

(2.) On notice having been issued, the respondents moved an application for leave to contest stating therein that the petitioner was served with ordinary summons on 21.5.2001. It was further the case of the respondent-petitioner that the notice was not sent in proper form and there was, thus, no notice to respondent No. 1 in the eyes of law. The leave to defend was sought on the following grounds: That there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and agreement dated 26.3.1979 was never acted upon and respondent No. 1 never became tenant in the property in dispute under the petitioners. The demised premises was taken on rent by M/s Gee Ess Engg. Works situated at 6-A, Sodal Nagar, near Sodal Mandir, Jalandhar, through its partners from the petitioners and since 1.4.1979 the rent is being paid on the basis of cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank, Industrial Area, Jalandhar and said rent was being received by Shiv Dev Singh, representative of the petitioners. Electricity charges are also paid since the inception of the tenancy by Gee Ess Engg. Works. At no point of time. Manjit Singh, respondent No. 1 ever paid rent to the petitioners nor the petitioners ever received the rent from Manjit Singh since April 1979. Partnership deed also came into existence w.e.f. with Darshapal Singh, Amarbir Singh, Tirath Singh, Manjit Kaur w/o Narinder Singh, another Manjit Kaur w/o Manjit Singh, Parkash Kaur and Mohinder Pal Singh and till date the rent has been paid from the bank account of Gee Ess Engg. Works by cheques. The petitioners are estopped by their acts, acquiescence and admission from asserting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Neither Manjit Singh nor Narinder Singh have got any concern with the tenanted premises and are not in possession of any part of the suit property. The application for leave to contest is likely to be accepted on the grounds mentioned in the application Applicants have other properties in Jalandhar, which they have concealed. The demised premises is a commercial building let out for commercial purposes, as such, as per amended Act, Non-Resident Indians are not competent to seek ejectment in respect of the commercial premises. Lastly, it is prayed that leave to contest the petition may kindly be granted to the applicant/tenants. The application is supported by affidavits of Manjit Singh s/o Balwant Singh, Darshanpal Singh s/o Narinder Singh and Mohinderpal Singh s/o Mehar Singh.

(3.) The application for leave to contest was opposed by the petitioner - landlord and the objection was taken that respondent No. 1 had no locus standi to seek leave to contest the present ejectment application on behalf of the respondents and that the leave to contest on behalf of the respondent was barred by limitation as the same was not filed within 15 days of the service of summons. It was also contended by the petitioner-respondents that the application was filed in Court on 7.6.2001 and was filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive to delay the decision of the ejectment application. The allegations that the service of summons was not in proper form was also denied. The contention that the petition was within time was also denied. It was also denied that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The factum of agreement dated 26.3.1979 being not having been acted upon was also denied. The allegation in the petition that the premises were taken on rent by M/s Gee Ess Engg. Works was also denied. The case set up by the respondent was that the alleged partnership was never a tenant in the property in dispute under the petitioners. The allegation that as the rent was being paid on the basis of cheque drawn on Punjab National Bank was also denied. It was also denied that Shivdev, representative of the petitioner had been receiving the rent on the basis of cheque from M/s Gee Ess Engg. Works through its partner and that electricity charges were paid by them. The case of the landlord was that the authority of Shiv Dev Singh as an attorney/representative was withdrawn. Leave to defend was earlier declined by Shri H.P. Singh, PCS, learned Rent Controller vide order dated 28.1.2002 and order of ejectment was passed against the respondent. However, said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing C.R. No. 631 of 2002 and the same was disposed of on 29.7.2003 by passing the following order: The petitioners are respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in an ejectment petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent-landlord has alleged that vide Rent Note dated 26.3.1979 premises in dispute were let out to Manjit Singh at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- for a period of 6 years and that the rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1,500/- per month. It is further pleaded that Manjit Singh has sub-let the building and parted with possession in favour of the present petitioners i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act. The petitioners herein applied for leave to defend alleging therein that they are direct tenants since 1.4.1979. Premises were taken on rent by M/s Gee Ess Engg. Works through its partners from the petitioners and since 1.4.1979 the rent is being paid through chequesto Shivdev Singh, representative of the landlord. Learned Rent Controller declined the leave to defend for the reason that there is only bald statement of the petitioner that they had taken the demised premises directly and written agreement dated 26.3.1979 was never acted upon. Admittedly at the stage of leave to defend the parties have not led evidence. The parties can support their contentions only if leave to defend is given and issues are framed. In the absence of an opportunity to leave to lead evidence it was not justified for the Rent Controller to hold that it is the only bald averment of the petitioners. It may be stated hat it is - categorical stand of the petitioners that from 1.4.1979 the rent is being paid through cheques. It was a strong circumstance, which was sufficient to grant leave to defend to the petitioners. In view thereof, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller is set aside. The petitioners are permitted to file written statement within 15 days after leave to defend is granted and the learned Rent Controller is expected to decide the case expeditiously. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 21.8.2003.