C.R.No.6796 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.6796 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : 16.12.2008
Nehru Yuva Kendra
...Petitioner
Versus
Jarnail Singh
......Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
.....
Present : Mr.Kulwinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
MAHESH GROVER, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.25678-CII of 2008
C.M. is allowed. Annexures P-1 and P-2 are taken on
record.
C.R.No.6796 of 2008
The petitioner has impugned the order dated 19.9.2008 by
which leave to defend was declined to him in the proceedings
initiated by the respondent under the provisions of Section 13-B of
the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’).
The respondent pleaded that he has come to India and is
a Non Resident Indian and the demised premises are required by him
for his own use and occupation as he intends to reside and start
business in India also. He has also pleaded that he has no such
C.R.No.6796 of 2008 -2-
premises in the municipal limits of Hoshiarpur except for the demised
premises.
The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that
all the ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act were satisfied by the
respondent-landlord and relying on the judgment of the apex court in
Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 492
accepted the prayer.
Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the
petitioner has contended that in 2001 the matter was conclusively
determined between the petitioner and the respondent when the
proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord pursuant to the
provisions of Section 13-A of the Act had been answered in favour of
the petitioner and in view of this the respondent-landlord was
precluded from taking recourse to the proceedings under Section 13-
B of the Act as it indicates that the proceedings are mala fide and the
need is not genuine. He has placed on record the earlier proceedings
filed by the respondent-landlord by way of a separate application.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
A perusal of the earlier orders passed by the Rent
Controller and this Court reveals that the respondent had taken
recourse to the filing of the petition under Section 13-A of the Act by
pleading that he is a specified landlord and his father is likely to retire
on 31.10.1997. His plea was not accepted. The other ground on which
the controversy under Section 13-A was answered in favour of the
petitioner was that the respondent had failed to demonstrate through
evidence that the demised premises were residential in nature and
C.R.No.6796 of 2008 -3-
hence as a conclusion the benefit of Section 13-A was denied to the
landlord.
The respondent has now resorted to the proceedings
under Section 13-B of the Act which are totally independent of the
proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act. It cannot be said that if a
person having attempted and failed in the proceedings initiated under
Section 13-A would be debarred from having resort to the
proceedings under Section 13-B which contemplates the satisfying of
particular ingredients and is special legislation enacted to benefit the
Non Resident Indians, even providing a separate procedure for
determination of the proceedings.
No other point has been urged.
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that
the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
totally misplaced and is, therefore, rejected.
No other ground has been urged before this Court.
Accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of any
merit is dismissed.
16.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER)
JUDGE
dss