S. TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who applied for leave to contest under Section 18-A (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 faced an order of dismissal by the Rent Controller and the person aggrieved by the same is the revision petitioner before this Court.

(2.) IN the petition for ejectment filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 claiming ejectment on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord, the tenant sought to contend that an earlier petition filed for eviction had been dismissed and a fresh petition was not maintainable. The tenant was running a shop and his further contention was that the landlord's requirement in respect of non-residential premises held by him was not maintainable. It was his further contention that the premises itself had been let out to him only by the petitioner's mother-in-law, Sawarn Kaur and the premises having not been let by the petitioner as landlord, the petition at the instance of the petitioner under Section 13B was not maintainable. As a last point for consideration, the tenant also stated that his wife had entered into an agreement of purchase in respect of half interest in the property from Swarn Kaur's son Tarlochan Singh and the property was in the possession of his wife as a person in part performance of an agreement to sale and hence, the petition for eviction against him was not maintainable.

(3.) EACH one of the contentions raised had been suitably considered by the Rent Controller and the reasoning is supported by the counsel for the respondent by pointing out that even in the petition for seeking for grant of leave, there was no specific reference to the fact that the letting had been done in favour of a private limited company and not to the individual and such a contention could not have been raised either at the time of arguments or in the revision. As regards the contention that a non-residential premise could not be vacated for the residential need of the landlord, learned counsel appearing for the respondent points out that Section 13-B of the Act is sweeping and comprehensive in its language that a landlord could seek eviction either for residential or non-residential need regardless of how the property is put in to use by the tenant. The third contention is that the petitioner-landlord, who had not let the premises to a tenant cannot apply under Section 13-B was pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that the purchase was of the year 1998 and the amendment incorporating Section 13-B itself was passed subsequently under Punjab Act 9 of 2001 dated 31.05.2001. He also refers to a decision of this Court in Ravinder Pal Mohindra v. Gurbachan Singh and others, 2006(2) RCR(Rent) 211 : 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 708 (P&H) that even a petitioner, who is a co-owner and who had acquired a right from the original landlord, could maintain a petition under Section 13-B of the Act. As regards the last contention regarding change in character of the property held by the tenant, learned counsel's reply was that the tenant himself did not set up any change in character from that of a tenant as such, but only pleaded a case of an agreement of purchase in the name of his wife.