RAJNISH JAIN Vs. KRISHAN KANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS -tenants have preferred this revision petition against the orders dated 3.2.2007 passed by Sh. Jaspal Verma, Rent Controller, Dasuya, vide which he dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 18A(4) and (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') and accepted the application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the Act ejecting the petitioners from the shop in dispute situated in main bazaar within the municipal limits of Mukerian.

(2.) FACTS are that the respondent filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act for the ejectment of the petitioners from the demised shop pleading therein that the shop was originally owned by his father Dr. Diwan Chand Joshi, who died in October, 1979, leaving behind him and others as his legal heirs. Sarhandi Lal, the successor-in-interest of the petitioners was tenant at monthly rental of Rs. 50/- and after the death of Dr. Diwan Chand Joshi, he became a tenant under him and other legal heirs. He went to USA for studies and since 1958 has settled at that place. He is Non-resident Indian. He has organized a corporation in the name of Krishan and Vicky Joshi Foundation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') with its intention to co- ordinate, co-operate and participate with other non-qualified, non-profit common religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational concerns for the betterment and well being of the society in general. That Corporation has already donated Rs. 15 lacs, Rs. 10 lacs, Rs. 2 lacs and Rs. 1 lac to ASSS School, Mukerian, Arya Girls School, Mukerian, S.P.N.College, Mukerian, Guru Nanak Girls School, Mukerian and D.A.V.College, Dasuya respectively. He is considering to donate more money to such like institutions for upgrading their infrastructures. He intends to provide benefit of this Corporation to his native motherland and wants to set up office for the same in the demised shop and as such requires the same for his own use and occupation. The other shop owned by him and his family is far away from his residence and is in occupation of other tenant. After the petitioners were served, they moved an application under Section 18-A(4) and (5) of the Act for leave to contest the ejectment application. They contended therein that the respondent is a permanent resident/citizen/national of U.S.A. and is holding a passport of that country. The Corporation has no existence/registration in India and the respondent has no intention to return to this country. He is already having a big house consisting of eight rooms, which is owned by his family. He can open office in that house itself for this Corporation. He is neither Director nor statutory agent of that Corporation. Even his brothers are settled in U.S.A. and have no intention to come back. In fact, he wants to sell the shop after getting the same vacated. They also contended that after the death of Dr. Diwan Chand Joshi, the mother of the respondent claims herself to be owner of this shop and got a rent note executed on 29.10.1979 and is receiving the rent to which the respondent and his brothers and sisters never objected. There is no relationship of landlord-tenant between them and the respondent. In these circumstances, they are entitled to be permitted to contest the ejectment application. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, dismissed that application of the petitioners and after accepting the application filed under Section 13-B of the Act directed them to vacate the demised shop.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has not been able to prove that he is the owner of the demised shop. It is very much clear from the rent note produced before the learned Rent Controller and which has been admitted by the respondent that the demised shop, after the death of Dr. Diwan Chand Joshi, was rented out by the mother of the respondent. That itself shows that she is the exclusive owner thereafter. In fact, the respondent has no intention to come to India and it is nowhere pleaded that the corporation has got any business to do in this country or any of its branch has been registered here. The said requirement of respondent is not his need and at the most can be said to be his wish. In these circumstances, learned Rent Controller committed an illegality while dismissing the application of the petitioners and not permitting them to contest the ejectment application. He prayed that the revision be accepted and the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller be set aside and the petitioners be permitted to contest the ejectment application.