SAT PAL Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Parkash respondent filed an ejectment petition (RA 40 of 2001) under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'Rent Act') against the petitioner relating to the residential building. The same was accepted by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 11.11.2002 against which Civil Revision No. 6024 of 2002 has been filed by the petitioner. Similarly, Om Parkash, respondent filed another ejectment petition (RA 41 of 2001) against the petitioner under the same provisions of Rent Act relating to non-residential building. It was also accepted by the learned Rent Controller against which the tenant-petitioner had filed Civil Revision No. 6025 of 2002. The questions of law and fact involved in both these revision petitions are the same and, therefore, both are being taken up for decision together. The parties would be referred according to their status in this revision petition.

(2.) THE case of Om Parkash, respondent in the ejectment petition was that he was Non-resident Indian (in short 'NRI') In Canada. He has decided to settle in India. He had rented out the demised residential premises to Sat Pal petitioner vide rent note dated 29.4.1981 and the rent was paid to him regularly. He required the demised premises situated at Khanna for his personal use and occupation. His son Naresh Kumar would also stay with him at Khanna. Although the petitioner has constructed his own Kothi but he has not vacated the demised premises. The respondent has no other residential accommodation within the municipal limits of Khanna nor he has vacated any such premises in Khanna after the coming into force of the Rent Act. Earlier also, he had filed an ejectment petition on the same ground under the ordinary law of Rent Act which was pending.

(3.) THE petitioner filed reply and contested the case. Preliminary objections regarding non-maintainability, estoppel and mala fide intention etc. were pleaded. It was also pleaded that the ejectment petition was barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as Rent Application No. 18 of 20.3.1997 and Rent Application No. 5 of 26.2.2001 filed by the respondent were still pending in the Court. The respondent is barred from filing a fresh ejectment petition. On merits, it was denied if the respondent was NRI. However, he is not entitled to seek ejectment of the petitioner on that ground. The respondent owns residential Kothi and commercial buildings in Delhi and his son Naresh Kumar is also carrying on business at Delhi. Another son of the respondent Shri Varjesh Kumar Aggarwal is permanently settled at Singapore and has flourishing business there. Relationship of landlord and tenant and the execution of rent note was admitted. It was denied if Naresh Kumar would stay at Khanna or the respondent wants to spend the evening of his life at Khanna. It was admitted that the family members of the petitioner have constructed a new house where they are residing but the petitioner and his wife are residing in the tenanted premises. Hence, dismissal of the ejectment petition was prayed.