BADRI NATH Vs. AMAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been declined leave to defend the petition filed for his eviction under the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab (Urban Rent Restriction) Act (for short, "the Act"). He has, thus, impugned the said order through the present revision petition.

(2.) BADRI Nath, petitioner, has filed this application for leave to contest, urging that there is no ground with the respondent to maintain this petition under Section 13-B of the Act and the same has been filed with mala fide intention. It is further pleaded that respondent would not have any locus to file the petition as she is not a Non Resident Indian. Further plea is that Amar Kaur, respondent, has not signed the petition and she is also not the exclusive owner of the demises premises. The need projected by her to get this premises vacated for her personal use has also been contested by saying that she has another shop situated towards southern side of the property and that the property which is with the respondent-landlady and is sufficient. In addition, it is also pleaded that the shop is an independent and is not forming a part of building from which another shop has already been got vacated and hence, present petition under Section 13-B of the Act could not be maintained to get the petitioner evicted from this shop.

(3.) THE Rent Controller considered the rival contentions raised before it and rightly formulated the issues which required to be determined in this case. The Court noticed that it was required to be shown that the respondent landlady is a non-resident Indian and has returned to India permanently or for a temporary period and has a genuine requirement of accommodation for her or her dependent. It is also to be shown that she is owner of the property for the last five years before the institution of the proceedings. The Rent Controller thereafter took up each and every ingredient and held that respondent-landlady was N.R.I as she had been residing in United Kingdom for last 40 years and, thus, would be covered by the definition of term 'N.R.I' under Section 2(dd) of the Act. It was also found that she proved herself to be the owner of the property on the basis of an admission made by the petitioner wherein he conceded that he took this shop on rent from Balbir Singh who is husband of the respondent-landlady, Amar Kaur. It was also noticed that Balbir Singh had died several years ago i.e. in the year 1970-71 and, thus, respondent-landlady is found to be owner of the property for more than five years from the date of institution of the petition.