HOT MILLIONS AND OTHERS Vs. HARISH BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby he has declined the application for leave to contest under Section 18- A and allowed the petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 (for brevity "Rent Act") of the Non-Resident Indian landlord.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the landlord filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act as extended to Union Territory, Chandigarh vide Notification dated 09.10.2009 for eviction of the tenant from the premises described as ground floor, basement and backyard of SCO No. 06, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The petition was filed through Sh. Vijay Pahwa, General Power of Attorney and it was asserted in the petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act that 50% share of the demised premises had been purchased by the landlord from Sh. Vinod Malhotra vide sale deed No. 4226 registered on 20.12007 with Sub Registrar, Chandigarh. At that point of time, the landlord was not in India and the sale deed was executed in his favour through his brother Sh. Om Parkash Batra. Pursuant to the sale deed, 50% share in respect of the demised premises was transferred in favour of the landlord by Estate Office, Chandigarh vide transfer letter dated 17.01.2008. It was further averred that prior to purchasing 50% share, the premises in question had been rented out in favour of M/s. Hot Millions through its Managing partner Sh. A.B.Singh vide rent deed dated 002005 which stood duly registered with Sub Registrar, Chandigarh vide Sr. No. 4432 on 002005. The period of tenancy was fixed as 10 years commencing w.e.f. 002005 and up to 28.02015.

(3.) Landlord filed the eviction petition invoking Section 13- B of the Rent Act claiming the status of Non-Resident Indian as per definition under Section 2(dd). Eviction was sought on the assertion that in the light of changed circumstances of the family of the landlord, he has decided to occupy the demised premises personally for doing business and to settle in Chandigarh. On notice of application for eviction, the tenant filed an affidavit seeking leave to contest as required under Section 18-A (5) of the Rent Act. The Rent Controller has declined the application for leave to contest and has passed the consequential order of eviction of the tenant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2016.