VIJAY PARKASH Vs. MANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the tenant is directed against the order dated 3.8.2004 of Rent Controller, Nawanshahar, dated 3.8.2004 whereby an application moved by him for grant of leave to contest a petition filed by the respondent-landlady under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act") for his eviction from the tenanted shop situated at Kothi Road, Nawanshahar was dismissed. As a consequence of dismissal of aforesaid application, ejectment petition was allowed and the petitioner herein was ordered to vacate the premises in dispute and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the respondent-landlady.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the controversy between the parties are that the landlady filed a petition for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the premises in dispute. It was averred that she was a non-Resident Indian and immigrant of England. In her capacity as such, she was a specified landlady as defined under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act and was legally entitled to seek tenant's eviction in summary proceedings. The landlady averred that she was owner of the shop in question by virtue of sale deed 21.5.1968 and the petitioner herein was in possession of the shop in dispute as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- along with house tax, for the last 30 years. (The petition was filed in May 2003).

(3.) THE petitioner herein (tenant) moved an application for leave of the Court to contest the petition. It was pleaded that the landlady had not yet returned to India and was still putting in there. She has not surrendered her citizenship of England to settle down in India. Even otherwise the landlady is already in possession of 92% area of total premises which she is using for her residence and business purposes and moreover, she wants to sell the premises by dividing it area-wise and have a maximum return therefrom. The tenant further pleaded that he had never received any notice for vacation of the premises in dispute. The landlady was also blamed for having not come to court with clean hands. Lastly, all that was submitted by the tenant was that the landlady had got many more properties in her name and possession, from where she could achieve her object that she was intending to fulfil from the premises in dispute.