RAM PAL THUKRAL Vs. JAGJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three stands of contentions by tenant : The tenant, who was ordered to be evicted in an application filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 opposes the plea in ejectment on three grounds that (i) the landlord was not a NRI within the definition of the Act and hence not competent to maintain a petition; (ii) the property is not held by his landlord as an absolute owner and another person, who incidentally happens to be the husband, has himself become a co- owner of the premises. The co-owner does not consent to the prosecution of the petitioner and therefore, eviction petition is not maintainable; and (iii) the need of the landlord is not bona fide and the earlier action for eviction by the landlord on the same ground had been disallowed and the landlord was applying for eviction with an oblique purpose of merely evicting him when the landlord was actually residing elsewhere at Noida in his own premises and therefore, there was no bona fide of the requirement of the landlord.

(2.) THE husband of the tenant, who had since become a co-owner of the premises is a legal representative to his mother Krishna Wati, who had purported to have purchased a fractional 1/3rd share of the property from the purchaser of the brother of the landlord has also come by means of revision. Since the order of ejectment had been passed despite the objection taken on his behalf that he had not concurred as a co-owner of the premises for the action of ejectment, the petition is not maintainable.

(3.) A reading of the provision, according to him, would admit of only persons who were either permanently or temporarily settled outside India, either for taking up employment outside India; or for carrying on a business or a vocation outside India; or for any other purpose, in such circumstances, as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period. In this case, according to him, the landlord's three children had been settled outside India, two of them in USA and one in U.K. and he had no intention to settle either temporarily or permanently for any employment or business and therefore, he does not come within the definition to obtain eviction by resort to Section 13-B. He refers to the evidence of the landlord where he had admitted that his passport contained a reference to an entry of the year 1999 and wanted to make the Court believe that after 1999, he never gone back to USA. Learned counsel for the respondent immediately joined issues on a matter of fact that the landlord holds an US passport and it was not correct to state that he had not returned to USA after his entry into India after 1999. He refers to the evidence of the landlord, which reads as follows :-