Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13477 (PNJ)

JASMER KAUR GILL AND ORS. v. IQBAL SINGH

CR/2956/2018 · 2025-05-26

Harkesh Manuja

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CR-2956- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Jasmer Kaur Gill and others Iqbal Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. 1. laid to an order Controller, Chandigarh, whereby an application under Section 18 (A) (4) & (5) of the East Punjab Urban tent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, leave to contest the eviction petition preferred by the petitioners/ landlords under Section 13 2. respondent Sector 1 premises’). property bearing SCO No. 83 -2018 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision: Jasmer Kaur Gill and others VERSUS Iqbal Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid to an order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby an application under Section 18 (A) (4) & (5) of the East Punjab Urban tent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, filed at the instance of respondent/ tenant for seeking ve to contest the eviction petition preferred by the petitioners/ landlords under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act has been allowed. Dispute between the parties relates to eviction of respondent-tenant from the basement (backside) of SCO No.83 Sector 17-D, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘demised premises’). As per the facts narrated in the eviction petition, the property bearing SCO No. 83-84, Sector 17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R-2956-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondent HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate By way of present revision petition challenge has been dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby an application under Section 18 (A) (4) & (5) of the East Punjab Urban tent Restriction Act, 1949, for short filed at the instance of respondent/ tenant for seeking ve to contest the eviction petition preferred by the petitioners/ B of the 1949 Act has been allowed. Dispute between the parties relates to eviction of tenant from the basement (backside) of SCO No.83-84, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘demised As per the facts narrated in the eviction petition, the 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh By way of present revision petition challenge has been dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby an application under Section 18 (A) (4) & (5) of the East Punjab Urban tent Restriction Act, 1949, for short filed at the instance of respondent/ tenant for seeking ve to contest the eviction petition preferred by the petitioners/ Dispute between the parties relates to eviction of 84, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘demised As per the facts narrated in the eviction petition, the D, Chandigarh SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- (hereinafter referred to as ‘building’) w petitioners registered sale deed dated 23.03.1971. separate portions of the building in question were created by the family of petitioners. Details thereof are extracted hereunder: 3. permanently settled in England and running successful business there, the petitioners invoked Section 13 ejectment of respondent from the demise that the same was required for their personal use and occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the northern -2018 (O&M) [2] (hereinafter referred to as ‘building’) w petitioners/ landowners along with few others being co registered sale deed dated 23.03.1971. separate portions of the building in question were created by the family of petitioners. Details thereof are extracted hereunder: (i) 1st and 2nd floor of SCO No. 83 17-D, Chandigarh, was under the tenancy of Canam Consultants Limited since 16.07.2000 at the rate of Rs.90698/ (ii) Area measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor (front portion) rented out to Harj Rs.26215/- per month; (iii) Some portion on the ground floor and basement (back side) rented out to respondent- Iqbal Singh; (iv) Some portion of ground floor (front side) rented out to deceased Harbhajan Singh, now tenancy rights inherited by w and son Karambir Singh (v) Some portions of 3 rented out to Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been permanently settled in England and running successful business re, the petitioners invoked Section 13 ejectment of respondent from the demise that the same was required for their personal use and occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the northern (hereinafter referred to as ‘building’) was purchased by the landowners along with few others being co-owners vide registered sale deed dated 23.03.1971. Different tenancies regarding separate portions of the building in question were created by the family of petitioners. Details thereof are extracted hereunder:- 1st and 2nd floor of SCO No. 83-84, Sector D, Chandigarh, was under the tenancy of Canam Consultants Limited since 16.07.2000 at the rate of Rs.90698/- per month. Area measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ per month; Some portion on the ground floor and basement (back side) rented out to Iqbal Singh; Some portion of ground floor (front side) deceased Harbhajan Singh, now tenancy rights inherited by widow Harjit Kaur and son Karambir Singh; Some portions of 3rd floor were separately Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been permanently settled in England and running successful business re, the petitioners invoked Section 13-B of the 1949 Act seeking ejectment of respondent from the demised premises on the ground that the same was required for their personal use and occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the northern region as purchased by the owners vide Different tenancies regarding separate portions of the building in question were created by the 84, Sector D, Chandigarh, was under the tenancy of Canam Consultants Limited since 16.07.2000 Area measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor it Singh @ Some portion on the ground floor and basement (back side) rented out to Some portion of ground floor (front side) deceased Harbhajan Singh, now idow Harjit Kaur floor were separately Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala. Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been permanently settled in England and running successful business Act seeking premises on the ground that the same was required for their personal use and occupation for region SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- of the country that the petitioners even filed ejectment petitions under Section 13 of the 1949 Act against other tenants as well regarding portions of the 4. Controller, Chandigarh and filed an application under Section 18 (A) (4) & (5) of the 1949 Act seeking leave to contest the eviction petition inter-alia -2018 (O&M) [3] of the country and also for setting up of an office that the petitioners even filed ejectment petitions under Section 13 of the 1949 Act against other tenants as well regarding portions of the building in question. Upon notice, the respondent appeared before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and filed an application under Section 18 (A) (4) & (5) of the 1949 Act seeking leave to contest the eviction petition alia on the following grounds:- i) On an earlier occasion, the petitioners/ landlords filed an eviction petition qua the demised premises against the respondent/ tenant on the ground of their bona fide need having invoked Section 13 of the 1949 Act and thus the present eviction petition filed under Section 13 their bona fide need qua the same premises was liable to be dismissed ii) The petitioners/ landlords did not return to India as they were well settled in England and running their business; iii) The demised premises was rented out in favour of respondent/ tenant by the co landlords, namely, Karnail Singh who was managing the building in question and this fact was even admitted by one of the petitioners/ landlords while appearing as a witness in the previous eviction proceedings as such 13-B of the 1949 Act instance of petitioners; iv) Neither other co-owners of the petitioners/ landlords and also for setting up of an office. It was also pleaded that the petitioners even filed ejectment petitions under Section 13 of the 1949 Act against other tenants as well regarding different Upon notice, the respondent appeared before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and filed an application under Section 18 (A) (4) & (5) of the 1949 Act seeking leave to contest the eviction petition On an earlier occasion, the petitioners/ landlords filed an eviction petition qua the demised premises against the respondent/ tenant on the ground of need having invoked Section 13 of the 1949 Act and thus the present eviction petition ed under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act again for need qua the same premises was dismissed; The petitioners/ landlords did not return to India as well settled in England and successfully running their business; The demised premises was rented out in favour of respondent/ tenant by the co-owner of petitioners/ landlords, namely, Karnail Singh who was managing the building in question and this fact was even admitted by one of the petitioners/ landlords ring as a witness in the previous eviction proceedings as such petition under Section of the 1949 Act was not maintainable at the instance of petitioners; owners of the petitioners/ landlords It was also pleaded that the petitioners even filed ejectment petitions under Section 13-B different Upon notice, the respondent appeared before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and filed an application under Section 18 (A) (4) & (5) of the 1949 Act seeking leave to contest the eviction petition On an earlier occasion, the petitioners/ landlords filed an eviction petition qua the demised premises against the respondent/ tenant on the ground of need having invoked Section 13 of the 1949 Act and thus the present eviction petition B of the 1949 Act again for need qua the same premises was The petitioners/ landlords did not return to India as successfully The demised premises was rented out in favour of owner of petitioners/ landlords, namely, Karnail Singh who was managing the building in question and this fact was even admitted by one of the petitioners/ landlords ring as a witness in the previous ection was not maintainable at the owners of the petitioners/ landlords SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- 5. contest was filed on behal prayer for rejection of the same. 6. 19.09.2016 granted leave to contest in favour of the respondent/ tenant, hence the present revision petition by the pet landlords. 7. petitioners / landlords submits that the petitioners happened to be co owners of the building in question for the past more than 05 years of -2018 (O&M) [4] in the building in question were imple to the eviction petition; nor any consent was obtained from them respondent/ tenant from the demised premises; v) The respondent/ tenant having purchased 1/18th share in the building in question thus could not be evicted at the hands of petitioners/ landlords in terms of Section 13 vi) Eviction petition preferred at the instance of petitioners/ landlords against one of their tenants, namely, Harjit Singh, who was occupying 1/4th portion on the ground floor of the building in question as tenant 1949 Act, but was withdrawn and fresh tenancy was created in his favour against enhanced rent fact was sufficient to believe that the need of petitioners/ landlords was not genuine. A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to contest was filed on behalf of the petitioners/ landlord prayer for rejection of the same. The learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 19.09.2016 granted leave to contest in favour of the respondent/ hence the present revision petition by the pet landlords. Impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners / landlords submits that the petitioners happened to be co owners of the building in question for the past more than 05 years of in the building in question were impleaded as party to the eviction petition; nor any consent was obtained from them before seeking eviction of respondent/ tenant from the demised premises; The respondent/ tenant having purchased 1/18th share in the building in question, become co-owner, could not be evicted at the hands of petitioners/ landlords in terms of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act; viction petition preferred at the instance of petitioners/ landlords against one of their tenants, namely, Harjit Singh, who was occupying 1/4th portion on the ground floor of the building in question as tenant though under Section 13-B of s withdrawn and fresh tenancy was created in his favour against enhanced rent which fact was sufficient to believe that the need of petitioners/ landlords was not genuine. A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to f of the petitioners/ landlords with the The learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 19.09.2016 granted leave to contest in favour of the respondent/ hence the present revision petition by the petitioners Impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners / landlords submits that the petitioners happened to be co owners of the building in question for the past more than 05 years of aded as party to the eviction petition; nor any consent was eviction of The respondent/ tenant having purchased 1/18th owner, could not be evicted at the hands of petitioners/ B of the 1949 Act; viction petition preferred at the instance of petitioners/ landlords against one of their tenants, namely, Harjit Singh, who was occupying 1/4th portion on the ground floor of the building in B of s withdrawn and fresh tenancy was which fact was sufficient to believe that the need of A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to with the The learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 19.09.2016 granted leave to contest in favour of the respondent/ itioners – Impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners / landlords submits that the petitioners happened to be co- owners of the building in question for the past more than 05 years of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- filing of the present eviction pr premises for expansion of their business in country and being residents of England were thus well within their rights to invoke Section 13 possession thereof. arguments it was established that the demised premises was rented out to respondent by Karnail Singh, who happened to be a co along with petitioners qua invo co-owners of the building in question. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent having purchased 1/18th share of the subject building was not to change the nature of rel the parties when as tenant only. allowed while setting aside the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh an respondent 8. tenant while reiterating the contest submitted that a perusal of the ejectment petition showed that two separate eviction petitions invoking Section 13 were filed by the petitioners qua two different properties i.e. SCO No.83-84 Chandigarh, however, the same was impermissible in the wake of -2018 (O&M) [5] filing of the present eviction proceedings; required the demised premises for expansion of their business in country and being residents of England were thus well within their rights to invoke Section 13-B of the 1949 Act for grant of immediate possession thereof. It was also submitted that even if for the sake of arguments it was established that the demised premises was rented out to respondent by Karnail Singh, who happened to be a co along with petitioners/ landlords, it was not going to effect the right petitioners qua invocation of Section 13 owners of the building in question. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent having purchased 1/18th share of the subject building was not to change the nature of rel the parties when he was put in possession of the demised premises as tenant only. Accordingly, it was prayed that the revision petition be allowed while setting aside the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and eviction order be passed against respondent – tenant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ tenant while reiterating the stand taken in the application for leave to contest submitted that a perusal of the ejectment petition showed that two separate eviction petitions invoking Section 13 were filed by the petitioners qua two different properties i.e. SCO 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh and SCO No.317 Chandigarh, however, the same was impermissible in the wake of oceedings; required the demised premises for expansion of their business in the northern part of the country and being residents of England were thus well within their B of the 1949 Act for grant of immediate It was also submitted that even if for the sake of arguments it was established that the demised premises was rented out to respondent by Karnail Singh, who happened to be a co-owner was not going to effect the rights of ation of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act being the owners of the building in question. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent having purchased 1/18th share of the subject building was not to change the nature of relationship between was put in possession of the demised premises Accordingly, it was prayed that the revision petition be allowed while setting aside the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the d eviction order be passed against On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ taken in the application for leave to contest submitted that a perusal of the ejectment petition showed that two separate eviction petitions invoking Section 13-B of the 1949 Act were filed by the petitioners qua two different properties i.e. SCO D, Chandigarh and SCO No.317-318, Sector 35, Chandigarh, however, the same was impermissible in the wake of oceedings; required the demised the northern part of the country and being residents of England were thus well within their B of the 1949 Act for grant of immediate It was also submitted that even if for the sake of arguments it was established that the demised premises was rented owner s of B of the 1949 Act being the owners of the building in question. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent having purchased 1/18th share of the ationship between was put in possession of the demised premises Accordingly, it was prayed that the revision petition be allowed while setting aside the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the d eviction order be passed against On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ taken in the application for leave to contest submitted that a perusal of the ejectment petition showed that B of the 1949 Act were filed by the petitioners qua two different properties i.e. SCO 318, Sector 35, Chandigarh, however, the same was impermissible in the wake of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- specific bar under Section 13 only, once in a lifetime ask for immediate possession in respect of one residential/ non need. It was further submitted that the eviction petition pertaining to SCO No.83 14.05.2010 and numbered as eviction petition No.103 21.05.2010 whereas, the eviction petition pertaining to SCO NO.317 318, Sector 35, Chandigarh was registered as ejectment petition No.1309/2010. question i.e. SCO No.83 owned by the petitioners/ landlords being co others and as such without impleading all the ejectment petition was not maintainable especially when one of them, namely, Harjeet Kaur wife of Lt. Sh. Harbans Singh even filed an application before the learned Rent Controller in the present ejectment petition thereby opposing the same while sub she never consented for filing of ejectment petition against respondent eviction petition preferred at the instance of petitioners qua the same premises having invoked pleading their and said order been upheld in appeal, the present ejectment petition under Section 13 -2018 (O&M) [6] specific bar under Section 13-B of 1949 Act wherein the owner could only, once in a lifetime ask for immediate possession in respect of one residential/ non-residential property on the ground of It was further submitted that the eviction petition pertaining to SCO No.83-84, Sector 17-D Chandigarh was filed 14.05.2010 and numbered as eviction petition No.103 21.05.2010 whereas, the eviction petition pertaining to SCO NO.317 318, Sector 35, Chandigarh was registered as ejectment petition No.1309/2010. Learned counsel also submitted that the building in question i.e. SCO No.83-84, Sector 17 owned by the petitioners/ landlords being co others and as such without impleading all the ejectment petition was not maintainable especially when one of them, namely, Harjeet Kaur wife of Lt. Sh. Harbans Singh even filed an application before the learned Rent Controller in the present ejectment petition thereby opposing the same while sub she never consented for filing of ejectment petition against respondent-tenant. It was further submitted that eviction petition preferred at the instance of petitioners the same premises having invoked leading their bona fide need, stood dismissed by the and said order been upheld in appeal, the present ejectment petition ection 13-B of the 1949 Act B of 1949 Act wherein the owner could only, once in a lifetime ask for immediate possession in respect of residential property on the ground of bona fide It was further submitted that the eviction petition pertaining to D Chandigarh was filed prior in time 14.05.2010 and numbered as eviction petition No.1038 dated 21.05.2010 whereas, the eviction petition pertaining to SCO NO.317 318, Sector 35, Chandigarh was registered as ejectment petition Learned counsel also submitted that the building in 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh was jointly owned by the petitioners/ landlords being co-owners along with others and as such without impleading all the co-sharers, the ejectment petition was not maintainable especially when one of them, namely, Harjeet Kaur wife of Lt. Sh. Harbans Singh even filed an application before the learned Rent Controller in the present ejectment petition thereby opposing the same while submitting that she never consented for filing of ejectment petition against tenant. It was further submitted that since an earlier eviction petition preferred at the instance of petitioners – landlords the same premises having invoked Section 13 of the 1949 A need, stood dismissed by the Rent Controller and said order been upheld in appeal, the present ejectment petition ct was liable to be dismissed B of 1949 Act wherein the owner could only, once in a lifetime ask for immediate possession in respect of fide It was further submitted that the eviction petition pertaining to prior in time on 8 dated 21.05.2010 whereas, the eviction petition pertaining to SCO NO.317- 318, Sector 35, Chandigarh was registered as ejectment petition Learned counsel also submitted that the building in h was jointly owners along with , the ejectment petition was not maintainable especially when one of them, namely, Harjeet Kaur wife of Lt. Sh. Harbans Singh even filed an application before the learned Rent Controller in the present mitting that she never consented for filing of ejectment petition against ince an earlier landlords Act ontroller and said order been upheld in appeal, the present ejectment petition as liable to be dismissed SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- particularly when the not established on record as neither they had returned back to India nor even sought counsel out by one petitioners submissions, it was prayed that the present revision petition be dismissed. 9. through the paper on behalf of the petitioners/landlords. 10. the instance of petitioners on the ground of their while invoking Controller besides even dismissal of the first appeal not going to make any difference to their rights as envisaged under Section 13 conferred upon the owner of a building or a part thereof to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in through LRs being relevant, is extracted hereunder: -2018 (O&M) [7] particularly when the bona fide need not established on record as neither they had returned back to India nor even sought eviction against all their tenants. Besides it, counsel also submitted that since the demise premises was rented one Karnail Singh, the eviction petition at the instance of petitioners – landlords could not be entertained. In view of the submissions, it was prayed that the present revision petition be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners/landlords. Mere fact that the previous eviction petition preferred at the instance of petitioners on the ground of their while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act was dismissed by the Rent Controller besides even dismissal of the first appeal not going to make any difference to their rights as envisaged under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act; the same being a special right erred upon the owner of a building or a part thereof to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (Dea through LRs, reported as 2010 (2) Rent LR 74 and para 48 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder: “48. The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction petition need of petitioners – landlords was not established on record as neither they had returned back to India against all their tenants. Besides it, learned also submitted that since the demise premises was rented Singh, the eviction petition at the instance of landlords could not be entertained. In view of the above submissions, it was prayed that the present revision petition be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners/landlords. Mere fact that the previous eviction petition preferred at the instance of petitioners on the ground of their bona fide necessity Section 13 of the 1949 Act was dismissed by the Rent Controller besides even dismissal of the first appeal, the same was not going to make any difference to their rights as envisaged under B of the 1949 Act; the same being a special right erred upon the owner of a building or a part thereof to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (Dea , reported as 2010 (2) Rent LR 74 and para 48 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder:- The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction petition landlords was not established on record as neither they had returned back to India; learned also submitted that since the demise premises was rented Singh, the eviction petition at the instance of above submissions, it was prayed that the present revision petition be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I find substance in the submissions made Mere fact that the previous eviction petition preferred at necessity Section 13 of the 1949 Act was dismissed by the Rent , the same was not going to make any difference to their rights as envisaged under B of the 1949 Act; the same being a special right erred upon the owner of a building or a part thereof to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (Dead) , reported as 2010 (2) Rent LR 74 and para 48 thereof The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction petition SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- 11. was available once in a life time to an owner and unless it was established by the tenant that any building/ tenanted premises was got vacated by the owner having u of the 1949 Act; mere rejection of an eviction petition filed at the instance of the owner under Section 13 be treated as ba 1949 Act or else it was going to defeat the entire purpose of the special provision enacted for the NRI owners especially when both the aforementioned -2018 (O&M) [8] filed by the respondent has no material bearing at all eviction petitions filed by her under Section 13B of the Act which confers a special right on the Non Indian-owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed by such NRI-landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither any issue as to whether or not the demised premises was required by the respondent for her personal use and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. Even the dismissal of an eviction petition on merits, filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under Section 138 of the Act. The non irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice t respondent-landlady.” Besides it, the right under Section 13 was available once in a life time to an owner and unless it was established by the tenant that any building/ tenanted premises was got vacated by the owner having utilized the right under Section 13 of the 1949 Act; mere rejection of an eviction petition filed at the instance of the owner-cum-landlord in exercise of right conferred under Section 13 thereof on the ground of be treated as bar for invoking special right under Section 13 1949 Act or else it was going to defeat the entire purpose of the special provision enacted for the NRI owners especially when both aforementioned provisions laid down separate filed by the respondent-landlady in default, in my view, has no material bearing at all on the merits of the eviction petitions filed by her under Section 13B of the Act which confers a special right on the Non-Resident owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed dlord is genuine and bonafide. In the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither any issue as to whether or not the demised premises was required by the respondent for her personal use and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. e dismissal of an eviction petition on merits, filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under Section 138 of the Act. The non-disclosure of an irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the landlady.” the right under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act was available once in a life time to an owner and unless it was established by the tenant that any building/ tenanted premises was tilized the right under Section 13 of the 1949 Act; mere rejection of an eviction petition filed at the landlord in exercise of right conferred on the ground of bona fide need was not to r for invoking special right under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act or else it was going to defeat the entire purpose of the special provision enacted for the NRI owners especially when both provisions laid down separate and distinct rights landlady in default, in my view, on the merits of the eviction petitions filed by her under Section 13B of the Resident owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed dlord is genuine and bonafide. In the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither any issue as to whether or not the demised premises was required by the respondent for her personal use and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. e dismissal of an eviction petition on merits, filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under disclosure of an o the B of the 1949 Act was available once in a life time to an owner and unless it was established by the tenant that any building/ tenanted premises was tilized the right under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act; mere rejection of an eviction petition filed at the landlord in exercise of right conferred need was not to B of the 1949 Act or else it was going to defeat the entire purpose of the special provision enacted for the NRI owners especially when both and distinct rights SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- besides different right under to any owner only whereas 1949 Act an eviction petition can be preferred at the instance of a landowner, he 12. submissions made on behalf of respondent/ tenant that the demised premises wa and thus, the petitioners/ landlords were having no right to seek his eviction while invoking Section 13 neither there were pleadings, nor even an to show that the rent was Moreover, the statement made by PW2 in earlier eviction petition (Rent Petition No. 193 Section 13 of the 1949 Act to the ef property was rented out by co affect the rights of the petitioners as available to them under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act as the owner of a premises from the tenant. Again, the language of Section 13 1949 Act nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the petitioners being co eviction/ immediate possession of the demised property fide need. -2018 (O&M) [9] besides different standards of burden to prove right under Section 13-B of 1949 Act being a special right is available owner only whereas on the other hand ct an eviction petition can be preferred at the instance of a landowner, he may not even be the owner of the demised premises. Furthermore, no substance can be found in the submissions made on behalf of respondent/ tenant that the demised premises was rented out in his favour by co and thus, the petitioners/ landlords were having no right to seek his eviction while invoking Section 13-B of the 1949 Act; especially when neither there were pleadings, nor even an to show that the rent was either payable or Moreover, the statement made by Sh. S.S. in earlier eviction petition (Rent Petition No. 193 Section 13 of the 1949 Act to the effect that “it is possibly yes that the property was rented out by co-owner Karnail Singh” was not going to ffect the rights of the petitioners as available to them under Section B of the 1949 Act as the same confers a special right upon the owner of a building to seek immediate possession of the demised premises from the tenant. Again, the language of Section 13 1949 Act nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the petitioners being co-owners were undoubtedly having right to seek n/ immediate possession of the demised property need. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment standards of burden to prove the claims. Moreover, ct being a special right is available on the other hand under Section 13 of ct an eviction petition can be preferred at the instance of a the owner of the demised premises. Furthermore, no substance can be found in the submissions made on behalf of respondent/ tenant that the demised s rented out in his favour by co-owner, Karnail Singh, and thus, the petitioners/ landlords were having no right to seek his B of the 1949 Act; especially when neither there were pleadings, nor even an iota of evidence on record either payable or ever paid to Karnail Singh. Sh. S.S. Gill, while appearing as in earlier eviction petition (Rent Petition No. 193-98) filed under fect that “it is possibly yes that the owner Karnail Singh” was not going to ffect the rights of the petitioners as available to them under Section confers a special right upon the building to seek immediate possession of the demised premises from the tenant. Again, the language of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the owners were undoubtedly having right to seek n/ immediate possession of the demised property for their bona regard can be made to the judgment . Moreover, ct being a special right is available ection 13 of ct an eviction petition can be preferred at the instance of a the owner of the demised premises. Furthermore, no substance can be found in the submissions made on behalf of respondent/ tenant that the demised owner, Karnail Singh, and thus, the petitioners/ landlords were having no right to seek his B of the 1949 Act; especially when n record ever paid to Karnail Singh. Gill, while appearing as 98) filed under fect that “it is possibly yes that the owner Karnail Singh” was not going to ffect the rights of the petitioners as available to them under Section confers a special right upon the building to seek immediate possession of the demised B of the 1949 Act nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the owners were undoubtedly having right to seek bona regard can be made to the judgment SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in case (supra). extracted hereunder: case of RCR (Rent) 264 here under: -2018 (O&M) [10] passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in (supra). For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being relevant extracted hereunder:- “26. The petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not the sole owner cannot sustain for the reason that a NRI co-owner/ joint owner can also file eviction petition under Section 13B of the Act.” Similar observations have been made by this case of Paramjit Singh Vs. Satnam Singh (Rent) 264 and relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted here under:- “9. ……In the instant case, the petitioner has claimed to have purchased the land over which the demised shop has been built along with his brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a partition had been effected between himself and his brother and the land over which the demised shop is constructed had fallen to his s which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. present revision petitioner. Though the petitioner has not produced any document on record to show that the partition of the land over which the demised shop has been constructed has been effected betwe however, even in the absence of any material coming on record to this effect, this Court is inclined to hold that even on assuming the petitioner to be co still there was no bar for him to file the pet seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar’s For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being relevant The petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not the sole owner cannot sustain for the reason that a owner/ joint owner can also file eviction petition under Section 13B of the Act.” Similar observations have been made by this Court in Paramjit Singh Vs. Satnam Singh, reported as 2024 relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted ……In the instant case, the petitioner has ve purchased the land over which the demised shop has been built along with his brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a partition had been effected between himself and his brother and the land over which the demised shop is constructed had fallen to his share which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. present revision petitioner. Though the petitioner has not produced any document on record to show that the partition of the land over which the demised shop has been constructed has been effected between himself and his brother, however, even in the absence of any material coming on record to this effect, this Court is inclined to hold that even on assuming the petitioner to be co-owner of the demised shop, still there was no bar for him to file the petition seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is Lakhwinder Kumar’s For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being relevant is The petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not the sole owner cannot sustain for the reason that a owner/ joint owner can also file eviction ourt in (1) relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted ……In the instant case, the petitioner has ve purchased the land over which the demised shop has been built along with his brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a partition had been effected between himself and his brother and the land over which the demised hare which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. present revision petitioner. Though the petitioner has not produced any document on record to show that the partition of the land over which the demised shop has been constructed has been en himself and his brother, however, even in the absence of any material coming on record to this effect, this Court is inclined to hold that even on assuming the owner of the demised shop, ition seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- 13. equivalent to 1% of the building in question vide sale deed dated 09.10.2001 from one of status of being tenant qua the demised premises him under the petitioners. share of the building in question from other co tenant was merely a sham tr decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ Kumar Jaiswal and others Vs. Bibi Husan Ban (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being relevant is reproduced hereunder: -2018 (O&M) [11] no such requirement of law and even if a landlord is not proved to be the sole owner of the property in dispute, he can take up the proceedings under Section 13 1949. In this regard, this upon Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed so. Reliance can also be placed upon 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of this Court had also observed so. As such, it is held that the argument as raised by the revision petitioner-respondent that since the petitioner was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the demised shop, therefore, he could not seek ejectment of the respondent, is l rejected.” Just because that the respondent purchased 1/18th share equivalent to 1% of the building in question vide sale deed dated 2001 from one of the co-owner status of being tenant qua the demised premises him under the petitioners. In the given facts, the purchase of 1% of share of the building in question from other co tenant was merely a sham transaction. decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ Kumar Jaiswal and others Vs. Bibi Husan Ban (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being relevant is reproduced hereunder:- no such requirement of law and even if a landlord is not proved to be the sole owner of the property in dispute, he can take up the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act, 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed so. Reliance can also be placed upon Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of d also observed so. As such, it is held that the argument as raised by the revision respondent that since the petitioner was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the demised shop, therefore, he could not seek ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be Just because that the respondent purchased 1/18th share equivalent to 1% of the building in question vide sale deed dated owners, is not going to change his status of being tenant qua the demised premises been occupied by In the given facts, the purchase of 1% of share of the building in question from other co-owner by respondent/ ansaction. Reference be placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Parmod Kumar Jaiswal and others Vs. Bibi Husan Bano, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being relevant is reproduced no such requirement of law and even if a landlord is not proved to be the sole owner of the property in dispute, he can take up the B of the Act, Court draws reliance Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed so. Reliance can also Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of d also observed so. As such, it is held that the argument as raised by the revision respondent that since the petitioner was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the demised shop, therefore, he could not seek iable to be Just because that the respondent purchased 1/18th share equivalent to 1% of the building in question vide sale deed dated not going to change his occupied by In the given facts, the purchase of 1% of owner by respondent/ on the Parmod , 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being relevant is reproduced SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- Kaur happened to be one of the co -2018 (O&M) [12] “21. In T. Lakshmipathi Nithyananda Reddy and others Court considered the question in detail in the context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that there is no determination of the lease in terms of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act where a tenant acquires only partial ownership interest. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council, the decision of this Court and other relevant materials, this Court held that the lease cannot be said by merger so long as the interests of the lessee, the lesser estate and that of the owner, the larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. This Court also noticed that merger was largely a question of intention dependant on cert circumstances and the courts will presume against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party. With respect we find that the position has been correctly stated in and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra). The subsequen Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and Others v. Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and Others proceeds on the same lines and supports the above position. We approve the principle of law stated in T. Laks Nithyananda Reddy and others In addition, the fact that the vendor of respondent; Harjeet Kaur happened to be one of the co-owners of the building in question; T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra) this Court considered the question in detail in the context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that there is no determination of the lease in terms of on 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act where a tenant acquires only partial ownership interest. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council, the decision of this Court and other relevant materials, this Court held that the lease cannot be said to have been determined by merger so long as the interests of the lessee, the lesser estate and that of the owner, the larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. This Court also noticed that merger was largely a question of intention dependant on certain circumstances and the courts will presume against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party. With respect we find that the position has been correctly stated in T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra). The subsequent decision in India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and Others v. Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and Others (supra) also proceeds on the same lines and supports the above position. We approve the principle of law T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra).” In addition, the fact that the vendor of respondent; Harjeet owners of the building in question; and ors. v. P. (supra) this Court considered the question in detail in the context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that there is no determination of the lease in terms of on 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act where a tenant acquires only partial ownership interest. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council, the decision of this Court and other relevant materials, this Court held that the to have been determined by merger so long as the interests of the lessee, the lesser estate and that of the owner, the larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. This Court also noticed that merger was largely ain circumstances and the courts will presume against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party. With respect we find that the position T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and Others v. Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri (supra) also proceeds on the same lines and supports the above position. We approve the principle of law hmipathi and ors. v. P. In addition, the fact that the vendor of respondent; Harjeet owners of the building in question; SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- the petitioners/ landlords were not Kaur was put to any loss qua possession of the demised premises on account of filing of ejectment petition going to suffer any financial loss towards the rent. In the circumstances wherein, Harjeet Kaur neither cla landlord of respondent; nor ever pleaded any rent being paid to her by the respondent, her consent was not at all required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment petition by the petitioners having invoked pointed out here that Harjeet Kaur financial loss, she was to seek remedy of filing suit for recovery by way of rendition of account which as per th proceedings impleadment of other co petition and not even obtaining consent from them was not to be treated as fatal to their cause for partition, rights were decided to be settled through auction of shares of co 14. Act, apparently there is no bar for a possession/ eviction given facts, wherein one of the co eviction petition and the respondent -2018 (O&M) [13] the petitioners/ landlords were not to be non Kaur was put to any loss qua possession of the demised premises on account of filing of ejectment petitions going to suffer any financial loss towards the rent. In the circumstances wherein, Harjeet Kaur neither cla landlord of respondent; nor ever pleaded any rent being paid to her by the respondent, her consent was not at all required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment petition by the petitioners having invoked Section 13 pointed out here that Harjeet Kaur, financial loss, she was to seek remedy of filing suit for recovery by way of rendition of account and/or seek partition of demise which as per the petitioners were already proceedings at the stage of passing of final impleadment of other co-owners by the petitioners in their eviction petition and not even obtaining consent from them was not to be ated as fatal to their cause especially when under the final decree for partition, rights were decided to be settled through auction of shares of co-owners. Further, from the language of Section 13 Act, apparently there is no bar for a possession/ eviction from a tenant qua given facts, wherein one of the co eviction petition and the respondent to be non-suited. Neither Harjeet Kaur was put to any loss qua possession of the demised premises on s by the petitioners, nor she was going to suffer any financial loss towards the rent. In the circumstances wherein, Harjeet Kaur neither claimed herself to be the landlord of respondent; nor ever pleaded any rent being paid to her by the respondent, her consent was not at all required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment petition by the ion 13-B of 1949 Act. It may also be , in case claimed any kind of financial loss, she was to seek remedy of filing suit for recovery by seek partition of demised premises already sub judice with partition at the stage of passing of final decree and as such non owners by the petitioners in their eviction petition and not even obtaining consent from them was not to be especially when under the final decree for partition, rights were decided to be settled through auction of Further, from the language of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, apparently there is no bar for a co-owner to seek immediate qua the entire building yet in the given facts, wherein one of the co-owners was objecting to the eviction petition and the respondent–tenant was intending to draw Harjeet Kaur was put to any loss qua possession of the demised premises on by the petitioners, nor she was going to suffer any financial loss towards the rent. In the imed herself to be the landlord of respondent; nor ever pleaded any rent being paid to her by the respondent, her consent was not at all required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment petition by the B of 1949 Act. It may also be claimed any kind of financial loss, she was to seek remedy of filing suit for recovery by premises with partition and as such non- owners by the petitioners in their eviction petition and not even obtaining consent from them was not to be especially when under the final decree for partition, rights were decided to be settled through auction of B of the 1949 owner to seek immediate the entire building yet in the was objecting to the tenant was intending to draw SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- benefit of the same; without e the area of demised premises under tenancy was more than the share of petitioners/ landlords question, rejected. 15. invoking Section 13 namely, Harjit any eviction petition under Section 13 Saroj Bala floor and third floor, respectively, to be treated as fatal to their cause as the petitioners were free to seek eviction from a part their suitability/ even derived from the definition of Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term ‘building’ well within their right to seek eviction of a part of building while invoking Section 13 necessity with respect to the start of new business. 16. has been established on record that the petitioners/ landlords have been residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to invoke -2018 (O&M) [14] benefit of the same; without even having the area of demised premises under tenancy was more than the share of petitioners/ landlords being co , any such plea by respondent rejected. Also, the petitioners having preferred eviction petition invoking Section 13-B of the 1949 Act against their other tenant, namely, Harjit Kaur followed by its withdrawal and not even filing of any eviction petition under Section 13 Saroj Bala who were in occupation of and third floor, respectively, of the building in question was not to be treated as fatal to their cause as the petitioners were free to seek eviction from a part/ portion of suitability/ requirement and need. even derived from the definition of Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term ’ also includes a part of it and therefore, the petitioners were well within their right to seek eviction of a part of building while invoking Section 13-B of the 1949 Act as per their situation necessity with respect to the start of new business. From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it has been established on record that the petitioners/ landlords have been residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to invoke ven having prima facie established that the area of demised premises under tenancy was more than the being co-owners of the building in respondent – tenant was liable to be Also, the petitioners having preferred eviction petition B of the 1949 Act against their other tenant, followed by its withdrawal and not even filing of any eviction petition under Section 13-B against Paramjit Singh in occupation of some portions of the ground of the building in question was not to be treated as fatal to their cause as the petitioners were free to of the building in question as per requirement and need. The aforesaid reasoning is even derived from the definition of ‘building’ as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term art of it and therefore, the petitioners were well within their right to seek eviction of a part of building while B of the 1949 Act as per their situation and necessity with respect to the start of new business. d circumstances of the case in hand, it has been established on record that the petitioners/ landlords have been residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to invoke established that the area of demised premises under tenancy was more than the e building in was liable to be Also, the petitioners having preferred eviction petition B of the 1949 Act against their other tenant, followed by its withdrawal and not even filing of Paramjit Singh or of the ground of the building in question was not to be treated as fatal to their cause as the petitioners were free to ilding in question as per The aforesaid reasoning is as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term art of it and therefore, the petitioners were well within their right to seek eviction of a part of building while and d circumstances of the case in hand, it has been established on record that the petitioners/ landlords have been residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to invoke SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- their special ri premises as provided under Section 13 petitioners being successful businessmen and intending to extend the same in the demised premises; their established especially there being no substantial rebuttal to it by the respondent/ tenant. Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it was not at all essen landowners to shift themselves was going to cost them, in terms of their business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under Section 13 the law laid Harmesh Singh of the this -2018 (O&M) [15] their special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised premises as provided under Section 13 petitioners being successful businessmen and intending to extend the same in the demised premises; their established especially there being no substantial rebuttal to it by the respondent/ tenant. Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it was not at all essen owners to shift themselves permanently was going to cost them, in terms of their business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under ection 13-B of 1949 Act. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon laid down by this Court in case of Harmesh Singh, 2015 (1) RCR (Rent) this judgment is reproduced hereunder “10. The factum of the own present case, the sale deed was executed wayback on 13.12.1991 and on the basis of the rent note, the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhabi had never been denied, as such and the only ground taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. It has also been held that the return to India, as such, is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the business by staying in a foreign country and he can do that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of law that the leave to contest is only to be granted on ght of seeking immediate possession of the demised premises as provided under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. The petitioners being successful businessmen and intending to extend the same in the demised premises; their bona fide need is also established especially there being no substantial rebuttal to it by the respondent/ tenant. Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it was not at all essential for the petitioners permanently in advance as the same was going to cost them, in terms of their existing and well established business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under n this regard, reliance can be placed upon ourt in case of Rakesh Sharma versus (Rent) 589. Relevant paragraph 10 judgment is reproduced hereunder:- The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the present case, the sale deed was executed wayback on 13.12.1991 and on the basis of the rent note, the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhabi ed, as such and the only ground taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. It has also been held that the return to India, as such, is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the business by staying in a foreign country and he can do ith a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of law that the leave to contest is only to be granted on ght of seeking immediate possession of the demised of the 1949 Act. The petitioners being successful businessmen and intending to extend the need is also established especially there being no substantial rebuttal to it by the respondent/ tenant. Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their tial for the petitioners – in advance as the same well established business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under n this regard, reliance can be placed upon Rakesh Sharma versus 589. Relevant paragraph 10 ership is not denied and in the present case, the sale deed was executed wayback on 13.12.1991 and on the basis of the rent note, the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhabi ed, as such and the only ground taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. It has also been held that the return to India, as such, is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the business by staying in a foreign country and he can do ith a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of law that the leave to contest is only to be granted on SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- 17. facts has failed to rebut the genuineness of the need expressed by the petitioners seeking leave to contest and thus the same needs to be rejecte the given facts, it may be relevant to place reliance upon the judgment of (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted hereunder: -2018 (O&M) [16] the grounds raised in the application filed under Section 18-A of the Act, which would show that triable issues had been made out. Even otherwise, the respondent facts has failed to rebut the genuineness of the need expressed by the petitioners – landlords in the application filed at his instance, for seeking leave to contest and thus the same needs to be rejecte the given facts, it may be relevant to place reliance upon the judgment of Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted hereunder:- “20. The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI landlord is reflected from the summary procedure prescribed under Section 18 which requires the Controller to take up the ma day-to-day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an application. The Legislature wants the decision of the Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction, it is only the High Court which consideration of the case, whether the decision of the Controller is in accordance with law. Section 13 gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and owner of the premises for five years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for ejectment only once during his life time. Sub Section 13-Bimposes a restriction that he shall not transfer through sale or any other means or lease out the grounds raised in the application filed under A of the Act, which would show that triable issues had been made out.” Even otherwise, the respondent – tenant in the given facts has failed to rebut the genuineness of the need expressed by landlords in the application filed at his instance, for seeking leave to contest and thus the same needs to be rejected. In the given facts, it may be relevant to place reliance upon the Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, 2005 (2) RCR (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI landlord is reflected from the summary procedure prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act of 1949 which requires the Controller to take up the matter on day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an application. The Legislature wants the decision of the Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction, it is only the High Court which can exercise the power of consideration of the case, whether the decision of the Controller is in accordance with law. Section 13- gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and owner of the e years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for ejectment only once during his life time. Sub-s. (3) of Bimposes a restriction that he shall not transfer through sale or any other means or lease out the grounds raised in the application filed under A of the Act, which would show that triable tenant in the given facts has failed to rebut the genuineness of the need expressed by landlords in the application filed at his instance, for d. In the given facts, it may be relevant to place reliance upon the , 2005 (2) RCR (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI landlord is reflected from the summary procedure A of the Act of 1949 tter on day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an application. The Legislature wants the decision of the Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction, it is can exercise the power of consideration of the case, whether the decision of the -B gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and owner of the e years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for s. (3) of Bimposes a restriction that he shall not transfer through sale or any other means or lease out SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956-2018 (O&M) [17] the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any of the conditions of sub the tenant is given a right of restor of the said building. Under sub Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part of such building to any othe tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term which can be extended upto six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong presumption that the need of t Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five years Virtually conditions and restrictions imposed on the NRI landlord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous landlord probably, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him by which practically he is deprived of his right in the property not only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of the property by sale or any other manner. The restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord would approach the court he would approac e ejected premises before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any of the conditions of sub-section (3) of Section 13-B, the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession of the said building. Under sub-section (2-B) of Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part of such building to any other person except the evicted tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term which can be extended upto six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine. Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five years Virtually conditions and restrictions imposed on lord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous landlord probably, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the conditions imposed on him by which practically he is deprived of his right in the property not only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of the property by sale or any other manner. The riction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord would approach the court he would approach when his e ejected premises before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any B, ation of possession B) of Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part of r person except the evicted tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term which can be extended upto six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong he landlord is genuine. Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five years Virtually conditions and restrictions imposed on lord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous landlord probably, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the conditions imposed on him by which practically he is deprived of his right in the property not only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of the property by sale or any other manner. The riction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord h when his SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956-2018 (O&M) [18] need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under Section 13-B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of the tenant, the Court s need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. But this would not dis that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself so that Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlords' favour that requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine. 21. We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's need regarding the bona fide a the legislative intent of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained according to plain language us and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Verghese need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of-course, subject to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of the tenant, the Court shall presume that landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. But this would not dis- entitle the tenant from proving that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant ove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlords' favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's need regarding the bona fide and genuiness is permitted, the legislative intent of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained according to plain language used in the enactment and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Verghese course, subject to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of hall presume that landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. entitle the tenant from proving that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant ove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's need nd genuiness is permitted, the legislative intent of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained ed in the enactment and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Verghese SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- Kumar versus S again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction against tenant is always upon him. Para No.16 reproduced here 18. issue been present revision petition is allowed. Order by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh is an order of eviction is passed against the respondent/tenant and in favour of the pet respondent the demised premises in favour of the petitioners -2018 (O&M) [19] v. Income Tax Officer, SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of Income- Tax, Madras, AIR (1956) SC 604. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumar versus S.Kuldeep Singh, 2023 again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction against tenant is always upon Para No.16 of the aforementioned judgment reproduced hereunder:- “16. From the scheme of things under Section 13 read with Section 18 the owner invoking Section 13 ingredients of the said Section and t on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction under Section 13-B, which, in our considered view, Mukesh Kumar failed to do.” In view of the discussion made hereinabove, no triable been made out in the application for leave to contest present revision petition is allowed. Order by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh is an order of eviction is passed against the respondent/tenant and in favour of the petitioners qua the demised premises. respondent-tenant is directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises in favour of the petitioners v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of Tax, Madras, AIR (1956) SC 604.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in a latest decision of Mukesh 2023 (2) RCR (Rent) 657, has again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction against tenant is always upon of the aforementioned judgment being relevant, From the scheme of things under Section 13-B read with Section 18-A, we are of the view that the owner invoking Section 13-B satisfies the ingredients of the said Section and the onus is on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction under B, which, in our considered view, Mukesh Kumar failed to do.” In view of the discussion made hereinabove, no triable plication for leave to contest, the present revision petition is allowed. Order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh is hereby set aside and an order of eviction is passed against the respondent/tenant and in itioners qua the demised premises. Resultantly, tenant is directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises in favour of the petitioners. Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of Mukesh 657, has again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction against tenant is always upon being relevant, is B A, we are of the view that B satisfies the he onus is on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction under B, which, in our considered view, In view of the discussion made hereinabove, no triable , the dated 19.09.2016 passed set aside and an order of eviction is passed against the respondent/tenant and in Resultantly, tenant is directed to handover the vacant possession of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-2956- 19. disposed of. 26.05.2025 sanjay -2018 (O&M) [20] Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2025 ( Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Yes/No Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2025.05.28 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document