HARDEV SINGH Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises, i.e., house to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of the order, which is dated 4.12.2007. The respondent had filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 claiming herself to be NRI and owner/landlady of House No. 7 (New No. 165) Ward No. 9, situated in Krishan Street, Doraha Mandi, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana. She had prayed for eviction of the petitioner, who is a tenant in the said premises. Respondent has statedly purchased the said house vide registered sale deed dated 22.10.1990, where respondent is tenant in one room, verandah, kitchen, parchhati, toilet and open space, situated on the ground floor. The prayer made by the respondent was that she would need this accommodation for her bona fide requirement as she is wanting to shift and settle in India from Canada where she is presently residing. Plea further is that the property in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and immediately after vacation, the respondent intends to re-construct the same and then use it for her own occupation.

(2.) UPON notice, the petitioner appeared and filed response contesting the plea raised by the respondent. Number of other pleas are also raised in regard to the respondent having concealed the fact that she owned and possessed three houses other than the one in dispute. It is pleaded that she had approached the court with oblique motive as otherwise she and her children are well settled abroad and have no intention to return to India.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the respondent-landlady has not chosen to even come back and appear as a witness and to face cross-examination to test the veracity of her version that she needed this premises for personal use. As per the counsel, the attorney would not be competent to depose about the fact of personal use and occupation of this premises by the respondent as these facts would be in her personal knowledge. To substantiate his plea, the counsel for the petitioner has referred to the cross-examination of PW-1 (attorney) to indicate that he was not in the knowledge of large number of substantial facts in regard to the other properties owned by the respondent and remained evasive and denied all those questions by saying that he was not aware of those facts. It is on this basis, the counsel contends that petitioner has been deprived of the right and opportunity to prove that the demised premises is not needed for use by the respondent or at any rate the respondent was not able to satisfy the need for use and occupation of this premises.