MANJIT LAL Vs. CHARAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of three revision petitions bearing CR Nos.2465, 2419 and 4722 of 2015, as the issue involved as well as the grounds for dismissing the application under Section 18-A of the amended East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') as well as the grounds of appeals are similar. However, for convenience, the facts are taken from CR-2465-2015.

(2.) While praying for setting aside the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant further submitted that the respondent-landlord does not fall within the definition of Non-Resident-Indian. Secondly, the Rent Controller has ignored the fact that the need of the landlord was not bonafide as one shop adjoining to the shop of Dharamp pal is lying vacant since last 11-12 years and one plot measuring 14-15 marlas adjoining to the disputed shop is also lying vacant since long and the said issue being arguable point, which could only be proved during trial. Therefore, the application under Section 18-A of the Act seeking to obtain the leave to defend and to contest the above noted rent petition, should have been allowed.

(3.) Qua the first ground, since, the matter with respect to Section 13-B of the Act was pending before Hon'ble the Apex Court, the matter was being adjourned accordingly to await the decision. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26925 of 2011 titled as Ram Krishan Grover and others vs. Union of India and others, and other connected appeals have since been decided on 14.11.2019, upholding constitutional validity of Section 13-B of the Act.