Civil Revision No. 2626 of 2007 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No. 2626 of 2007
Date of Decision: 21.11.2008
Tarlok Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Rana Manoranjan Singh Aujla
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Pruthi, Advocate
for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
In the present case, landlord Rana Manoranjan Singh Aujla
had filed an eviction petition against the tenant Tarlok Singh on the
ground that under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) being Non
Resident Indian and owner of the property, he is entitled for eviction of
the tenant on the ground of personal necessity.
Tenant appeared and filed reply seeking leave to defend.
A vital question was raised that the property has not been let
out by the landlord. A reference has been made by Mr. Subhash Ahuja,
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, to Section 13-B
of the Act and he has emphasized that the words “let out by him or her”
Civil Revision No. 2626 of 2007 2
in Section 13-B of the Act assume importance and it has to be proved by
the landlord that the building was let out by him. He has further stated
that family members of Rana Manoranjan Singh Aujla had sold the
property situated at Kapurthala and this conduct in itself is sufficient to
infer that the premises are not required for personal necessity.
Mr. Ahuja stated that all these averments may require
evidence to be led and, therefore, summarily mechanism under Section
13B of the Act have not been invoked rightly.
I have heard Mr. Ashok Pruthi, Advocate, appearing for the
respondent.
Mr. Pruthi has stated that since the petitioner is a Non
Resident Indian and he has proved his passport, his need is bonafide.
These arguments are not available to the tenant. He has further stated
that the allegation that the respondent to the present petition and his
family members have sold the property is wrong.
Be as it may, in order to ensure fair play and balance the
equities, these are questions of fact involved which are only to be
decided by leading evidence, therefore, leave to defend is granted to the
petitioner.
At this stage, Mr. Pruthi has stated that provisions of Section
13B of the Act have been enacted and are beneficial in favour of
landlord, therefore, this Court should specify the time for conclusion of
the proceedings.
I find merit in this submission. Accordingly, learned Rent
Controller is directed to conclude the entire proceedings within six
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by granting
Civil Revision No. 2626 of 2007 3
three opportunities each to the landlord and the tenant. They shall
conclude their entire evidence in three opportunities afforded and
thereafter the case will be decided.
Any observation made herein will not affect the final outcome
of the case.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
November 21, 2008
“DK”