INDER PAL Vs. CHANDER KANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 26.3.2018 passed by the Rent Controller, Kapurthala as well as the order dated 12.7.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Kapurthala whereby the application of the petitioner-tenant for leave to contest was dismissed.

(2.) While praying for setting aside both the orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, the landlord has not pleaded that she is residing in India or has returned to India. The failure to plead the same renders the very eviction petition as not maintainable. As per Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') it is mandatory to plead that she is a non-resident Indian and has returned to India permanently. In the present case, landlord is admittedly residing in Germany and does not reside in India. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Krishan Kumar and others vs. Kamla Devi and others, 2016 (1) RCR(Rent) 525 to contend that landlord has to return to India permanently to avail the remedy under Section 24(3) of the Act.

(3.) Secondly, both the Courts below have ignored that the respondent is only a co-owner and a co-owner has no right to file the eviction petition.