Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, 151, Order 41 Rule 27 –  Rent appeal – Application for additional evidence – Pendency of -- Appellate Authority has to consider the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and decide the same either while passing the main judgment or by virtue of a separate order of even date at the time of deciding the appeal, which has not been done -- Judgment of the Appellate Authority set aside, case remanded back to the Appellate Authority.

(Para 4)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15(5) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Eviction petition -- Amendment of written statement -- Case was at the stage of tenants’ evidence, when the application for amendment of written statement was moved – Tenant stated that he had recently come to know about another double storey commercial building to be belonging to the landlords – Held, in case, the tenant finds that landlord has any other property in his occupation, he can produce necessary evidence in this regard, for that purpose, amendment of the written statement is not required – Amendment declined.

(Para 5-7)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15(5) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Eviction petition -- Discovery of documents -- A party cannot be compelled to produce the document if he/ she/ they were to contend that the original document was not in their custody -- Rent Controller rightly observed that an “appropriate inference would be drawn at appropriate stage for non-production of original documents” -- Said observation is in accordance with law.

(Para 6)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Residential building as commercial -- Once the appellant/ tenant himself is running a commercial activity at the spot, he cannot complaint on this ground.

(Para 6-9)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Subsequent eviction petition – Bonafide need – Arrears of rent – Recurring cause of action -- In eviction petition, the ground of bonafide requirement and non-payment of rent are recurring causes and that landlord is not precluded from instituting fresh proceedings -- Merely because the earlier ejectment petitions filed in 2001 were  dismissed in 2005, cannot be ground to reject the subsequent petitions, which have been filed in March, 2010 i.e. more than 08 years from the date of filing of the earlier ejectment petitions.

(Para 14-16)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Ownership/ Use and occupation of other building --  Landlord is not obliged to disclose premises, which are not in his occupation -- Property not in occupation of the landlord must be distinguished from the owned properties and that if the property is not in occupation, no disclosure is necessary.

(Para 19, 20)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Presumption -- It is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord about her/ his bonafide necessity -- If a landlord asserts that he requires the tenanted premises to expand the business, his need must be presumed as bonafide.

(Para 29)

E. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Old age of landlady -- Simply because the landlady has grown old, cannot be a ground to reject the ejectment petition , once she has proved her bonafide necessity.

(Para 32)

F. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Bonafide need – Concurrent finding of fact – Power of Revisional court:

-- Revisional power of the High Court under Section on 15(6) of the Rent Act is not appellate power and so, the high court cannot reappreciate the evidence on record, whether oral or documentary only because it is inclined to take a different view of facts as it were a court of facts.

-- High Court can interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller/ Appellate Authority, only if it finds that the said finding on the question of bonafide requirement is either perverse or arbitrary, or there is illegality or perversity of such a nature that it demands interference.

(Para 33-37)

Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (16 of 2021), Section 21, 38(1) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Rent laws -- Suit for injunction by tenant against landlord – Maintainability of -- Section 21 does not contain any provision enabling a tenant to file an application for protection against apprehended eviction otherwise than in accordance with the law -- Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suits for injunction filed by tenants against their landlords, is not barred -- Civil Court continues to have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for injunction even after enactment of the Act of 2021.

(Para 9, 10)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Eviction – Arrears of rent -- Assessment of provisional rent – Requirement of – Denial of relationship of landlord-tenant – Held, tenant is denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, Rent Controller rightly declined to assess the provisional rent.

(Para 4)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B – NRI landlord – Bonafide need -- Multiple ejectment petition for different shops forming part of one unit – Permissibility of -- Landlord has got possession of two shops, one shop is lying vacant for seven years and another shop from three months -- Rent petition filed in 2006, there is specific pleading as well as evidence on the part of the landlord that his wife has already retire and that he was also going to retire within a year in 2007 – After coming back to India, landlord intends to convert the entire building into one unit, which he requires for his residence as well as occupation -- It has been testified that he has four sons who are married and has also the grandchildren and they can be able to visit him only once if he settles here permanently -- Said testimony of landlord cannot disputed by the tenant, once he had deposed about his bonafide necessity – Ejectment order, upheld.

(Para 1, 4.2, 10-12)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Landlady wants to convert the entire ground floor into a big hall so as to open a showroom -- Tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to what should be his/ her necessity -- Neither the tenant can object in this regard nor the Court can direct the landlady to go as per the suggestions of the tenant.

(Para 5)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Landlord residing abroad -- Merely because during the pendency of proceedings, the landlady is residing outside, cannot be a ground to reject the petition -- As soon as the property is vacated, she intends to do her business by converting the ground floor into a big hall and to open a showroom and the said contention of landlady cannot be disbelieved.

(Para 6)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Resjudicata -- Earlier petition filed for bona fide requirement by the husband of the petitioner was dismissed -- However, present petition has been filed by the landlady after the death of her husband and therefore, in case she wants the demised shop for starting her business by opening a showroom by converting the entire ground-floor into a hall, for her livelihood, a fresh cause of action has arisen in favour of the landlady.

(Para 7)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Presumption -- Landlord, who establishes his prima facie case regarding his necessity, the Court is entitled to raise a presumption in his favour to the effect that the necessity is bona fide -- Onus then shifts upon the tenant to show that the plea of landlord is not bona fide.

(Para 7)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B, 15 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 90 -- NRI Landlord – Ownership – Proof of – Additional evidence – 30 year old sale deed – Presumption -- Registered sale deed of 1937 produced from proper custody and being more than 30 years old document carries presumption in terms of Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act and its veracity cannot be impeached at the hands of tenant – Application to lead additional evidence in the shape of sale deed allowed – Matter remanded back to Rent Controller with liberty to tenant for rebuttal if any.

(Para 9-12)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need -- It is the landlord, who is the master of his needs -- The tenant or even the Court cannot direct the landlord about his requirement or tell him how much accommodation would be sufficient for him and his family.

(Para 35)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Death of landlord – Long pendency of proceedings – Effect of -- Petition was filed by the landlord in 1980 – No merit in argument that now the requirement of the original petitioner i.e. the landlord must have ceased to exist as the said landlord has died – There is no doubt that the landlord is dead and a period of about 44 years has elapsed from the time of filing of the petition but at the same time the children of the landlord have acquired his rights and they have also been brought on record in the form of his LR, therefore the genuine requirement of the landlord to move out in 1980 still cannot be ignored.

(Para 36, 37)

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (XXXVII of 1997), Section 6 -- Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Eviction of tenant – Mesne profit -- Contention that there is no stay awarded, the question of such payment does not arise – It is also within the bounds of law, tenant who once entered the property in question lawfully, continues in possession after his right to do so stands extinguished, is liable to compensate the landlord for such time period after the right of occupancy expires -- Mesne profit assessed and ordered to be deposited in the registry of the Court.

(Para 18-23)

Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (25 of 1987), Section  2(j), 4, 24 – Tenant -- Fair rent – Determination of -- Expiry of lease – Power of Appellate Authority -- Respondent falls within the definition of ‘tenant’ and that the Rent Controller was having the statutory right to pass order on an application filed before it either by the tenant or the landlord for determination of fair rent -- Appellate Authority was to adjudicate the appeal within the parameters of the statutory provisions of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and there was no occasion for it to traverse this Act and fall back on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

(Para 11-16)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Eviction petition – Amendment of written statement -- Amendment sought is to clarify the location and the area of the demised premises -- Court should assist the parties in bringing on record the complete facts than to prevent them from exercising their rights on rigid technicalities -- Rent Controller, directed to provide one effective opportunity to the petitioners/ defendants to file their amended written statement.

(Para 7-9)

Rent laws -- Eviction of tenant – Appeal/ Stay application pending -- Warrant of possession – Held, purpose of filing of appeal shall stand frustrated, if the execution is culminated – Ld. Appellate Authority requested to decide the stay application, on the date fixed or maximum within a period of seven days thereafter -- In the meanwhile, the warrant of possession (if issued), shall remain in abeyance and the protection of possession of the petitioner from the demised premises, shall continue.

(Para  2-6)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Arrears of rent -- Assessment of provisional rent -- Tenant filed appeal against assessment order -- Said appeal was dismissed, parties directed to appear before learned Rent Controller on 09.11.2022 for further proceedings and order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of provisionally assessed rent – Held, Rent Controller was required to fix a date for payment of provisional rent assessed – Eviction order set aside, parties directed to appear before the Rent Controller and to pay the arrears of provisional rent assessed.

(Para 6-8)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Withholding of evidence -- Adverse inference – Presumption -- Section 114 enables the Court to presume existence of certain facts, which includes drawing of adverse inference particularly when the evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it -- Such presumption can be drawn only if the party intentionally withholds the best evidence.

(Para 6)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Non-examination of Landlady -- Adverse inference -- In each and every case, mere non-appearance of landlady/ landlord in the witness box would not necessarily require the Court to draw adverse inference -- It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

(Para 7)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Non-examination of Landlady -- Adverse inference -- Landlady’s husband, who is also residing with her, appeared in evidence -- He has answered all the questions, which were put to him in his cross-examination -- Courts have not erred in refusing to draw adverse inference – Revision dismissed.

(Para 7, 11)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction petition -- Titel of landlord -- Rent proceedings are summary and the landlord is not required to prove his title as in the civil case.

(Para 10)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) , Section 13 -- Bonafide need of son – Availability of other vacant shops -- A landlord is the best judge of his needs -- Merely because there are other shops in the building which are available with the landlord-respondent would not dis-entitle him from filing an ejectment petition -- Nothing on the record to show that the son of the landlord-respondent was either employed or was doing any business – Revision against eviction dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant – Arrears of rent -- Provisional rent assessed – Death of tenant’s wife – Assessed rent not paid -- Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent on 28.09.2022 and adjourned the case to 04.11.2022 permitting the tenant to pay the provisional rent -- Petitioner lost his wife on the intervening night of 04/05.11.2022 -- On account of failure to pay the provisional rent, the ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller on the same day -- On 22.01.2023, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount by way of demand draft which has been complied with and the respondents have already encashed the same -- Impugned orders of eviction set aside.

(Para 2-7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 15 Rule 5 – Non-payment of due rent -- Defence struck off -- Obligation upon the lessee to make payment of the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest on the first date of hearing, failing which the court has the power to strike off the defence of the defendant -- An obligation is cast upon him to pay throughout the continuation of the suit such monthly amount which is due within a week from the date of its accrual, failing which the Court has got the power to strike off the defence.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 15 Rule 5 – Non-payment of due rent -- Defence struck off -- Petitioner/ defendant has failed to deposit the monthly rent due, during pendency of the suit, the learned Trial Court is perfectly justified in striking off the defence of the petitioner/defendant – Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 7,  8)

Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 24 (1)(c) -- Leave to defend – Limitation -- No application seeking leave to defend was filed by the petitioners within stipulated period of 15 days of service of notice -- Even the application seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings was also filed much beyond the aforesaid statutory limit -- Rent Act being complete code, the provisions of Limitation Act would not be applicable to the eviction petition filed by the respondent – Rent Controller rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings.

(Para 10, 11)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Bonafide need – Eviction of tenant -- Landlord running office of Chartered Accountant in two rooms situated behind the demised shop and he is having residential house on the first floor -- As per his version, he is father of two grown-up sons who are of marriageable age – Landlord wanted to settle down his sons in the residential portion on the first floor and he along with his wife being in old age wanted to shift in the two rooms already in their occupation in which he was running his office of Chartered Accountant and further wanted to shift his office in the front portion i.e. in the demised premises – Eviction order upheld.

(Para 12)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Intent to start own separate  business -- A landlord who is already running a business with his father cannot be denied eviction of tenanted premises on the ground that his intent to set up his own separate business is not bonafide -- Every individual has a right to take strides in life & the said opportunity cannot be curtailed at the instance of a tenant to whom right of restitution is always available in terms of Section 13(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

(Para 9)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant -- Arrears of rent -- Provisional assessment of rent – Non-tendering of – ‘first date of hearing’ mean, the first date of hearing after determination of provisional rent and other expenses by the Rent Controller – No extension of time can be granted to the tenant for depositing the arrears of rent -- Respondent/tenant failed to tender provisionally assessed rent on the first date of hearing -- Respondent/ tenant directed to handover the vacant possession of the property along with payment of arrears of rent and ancillary charges. Rakesh Wadhawan’s case 2002(5) SCC 440 = (2002) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16854 relied.

(Para 11-14)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 15 – Service of summons -- Respondent is stated to have been served physically through a member of his family -- Respondent stands duly served -- None has appeared on behalf of the respondent, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte.

(Para 5, 6)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) -- Appointment of arbitrator -- Landlord-tenant dispute – Lease deed would show that the parties had specifically agreed for resolution of the disputes through arbitration -- Notice to the respondent had specifically been called upon for initiation of arbitration proceedings, but to no avail – Such disputes can be adjudicated by way of arbitration – District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) appointed as the sole Arbitrator.

(Para 6-10)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant – Bonafide need to run School -- No evidence or material to doubt the bonafide of the respondent-society --  Argument that the construction over the area has been made by the petitioners as they were only assign the plot is concerned rejected as same is being taken for the first time in the revision petition before High Court – High Court will not go into the factual aspect which have not even been taken before the Courts below – No illegality or infirmity in impugned/ ejectment order -- Revision dismissed.

(Para 1, 11)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Sub-letting – Onus to prove – If landlord prima facie able to show that tenant has parted with possession, the onus of proof with respect to the nature of possession shifts upon the tenant -- It is for the tenant to show that in what capacity the person alleged to be sub-tenant, is in possession and in the absence of any evidence, explaining the nature of possession, sub-letting would be presumed.

(Para 8)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Sub-letting to son – Onus to prove -- Categorically averred in the rent petition that sons of tenant are in exclusive possession of the demised shop and for a valuable consideration – Admission of the tenant that his son supports him in his work and he sits at the shop only in the morning -- It became obligatory for him to bring on record material evidence so as to show that his son is merely supporting him in the joint business and not working and earning independently.

(Para 10)

C. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Change of user – Admitted by tenant that part of this shop was used by his elder son for residential purposes; but further explained by stating that family of his son lived there only for a temporary period when his house was being built -- Onus shifted upon tenant to show that residence of his son was relocated only for a temporary period – Neither any documentary evidence has been brought on record to show that the present residence of his elder son is at a place different from the shop; nor any other family member of tenant has appeared as a witness to support this fact – Eviction allowed.

(Para 12)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13, 15 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 35, 36 -- Eviction – Execution -- Eviction order by Rent Controller in 2010 – Appeal of tenant dismissed in 2012 -- Execution petition was filed in the year 2019 -- Objection of petitioner-tenant dismissed and no stay order in appeal -- Warrant of the possession received back unexecuted – Impugned order for warrants of possession have been issued with a further direction to the bailiff to break open the locks of the shop in possession of the petitioner -- No illegality in the said order at all warranting interference in Revisional jurisdiction -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3A, 7 – Document -- Pen-drive -- Recording (audio-video) contained in the pen-drive is documentary evidence being an electronic record and can even be treated as an admission u/s 7, however, subject to proof of its genuineness.

(Para 8)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3A, 7, 65-B -- Arrears of rent -- Eviction petition – Voice sample comparison – Permissibility of -- Admission relating to payment of rent in pendrive -- Pendrive was permitted to be played in Court in the presence of both the parties under the orders of the Rent Controller which was never challenged by the respondent-landlord -- Same was put to respondent while he appeared as PW-1 and was made part of record as Ex.-R-1/A along with an affidavit/ certificate submitted by the petitioner-tenant as Ex. R-2 -- PW-1 disputed the voice therein to be that of petitioner-tenant -- Petitioner-tenant permitted to send his voice sample to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison with the audio/video recorded in the pendrive Ex.R1/A.

(Para 9-11)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 15 – Rent revision – Concealment of facts – Effect of -- Fact regarding the SLP having been filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same having been withdrawn after addressing arguments and further about the issue of ownership of the shop in dispute having been raised in the said SLP was neither disclosed before the Executing Court nor disclosed in present petition -- Litigants who, with an intent to deceive and mislead the Court, initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts and come to the Court with unclean hands, are not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor are they entitled to any relief – Revision petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/-.

(Para 11-13)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13, 16, 18 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3A – Eviction petition – Examined of other witnesses by landlady – Examination of landlady thereafter – Objection to -- Rent Controller can proceed with the trial by following its own procedure -- Provisions of CPC are made applicable as provided u/s 16 of Act, 1973 regarding summoning and to enforce the attendance of witnesses -- Section 18 of the aforesaid Act explained that for the execution of the orders the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are strictly applicable -- Therefore, it cannot be said that all the provisions of CPC are applicable to the petition filed under Act, 1973 – Application under Order 18 Rule 3A declined by Rent Controller, upheld.

(Para 1, 4)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 106 -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 1, 13 – Eviction of lessee – Notice u/s 106 of TP Act – Termination of tenancy -- Effect of -- At the time of filing the suit, provisions of  Rent Act were not applicable to the suit property – A simple tenancy can be terminated by service of notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act -- Once a valid notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act is served, possession of tenant over the property becomes illegal and unlawful and thus, learned trial Court rightly decreed the suit with the observation that tenancy stood terminated.

(Para 11, 16)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need – Inspection of premises – Permissibility of -- If the respondent/ tenant wants to establish that the petitioner/landlord has got any other accommodation available with him, where he can start his business that can be done by leading evidence -- A Civil Engineer engaged by the respondent/ tenant cannot be sent to inspect the entire premises and to prepare its site plan just to create evidence – Order passed  by the Rent Controller, allowing the application for inspection of property set aside.

(Para 1, 6, 9)

Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 (17 of 1950), Section 14(3) – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Eviction of tenant – Suit for eviction within 5 years of tenancy -- Suit may have been defectively instituted within five years of the tenancy, more than 38 years have now elapsed since the suit was filed – Held, passage of time beyond the period of five years would wash away the initial impediment against the suit -- To say that the landlord should now, once again, restart the proceedings would be a travesty of justice -- Expression used is ‘shall lie’ or ‘be entertained’ would really make no difference -- Objective is to create an impediment in the institution and trial of the suit for a period specified under the said Act -- Spirit of protection is fulfilled with the passage of the prescribed time period – Supreme Court is also armed with the extraordinary power under Article 142 to do absolute justice inter se the parties -- Decree of eviction passed by the first appellate court affirmed.

(Para 16-22)

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972), Section 20, 30(1) – Eviction of tenant -- Deposit of rent in the Court – Effect of – Tenant can only deposit rent in the Court, as long as the landlord has refused to accept the rent -- Once the landlord expresses his willingness to accept the rent, by serving the notice dated 05.04.1995 (received on 10.04.1995), the tenant has no option but to deposit the rent to the landlord -- This has not been done by the appellant – Eviction by Small Causes Court, upheld by High court -- Appeal against dismissed.

(Para 1, 11)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 – Ex-parte eviction order – Application for setting aside of ex-parte order – Speaking order – Requirement of -- Without adverting to the evidence on record and without any discussion, the application dismissed by a cryptic and totally non-speaking order -- Once the evidence was available on the record the Rent Controller ought to have dealt with the same before deciding the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC -- Impugned order is perverse and un-sustainable in law and accordingly set aside -- Matter remanded to the Rent Controller to decide the application afresh in accordance with law.

(Para 6)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI Landlord – Permanent return to India  -- NRI landlord not required to return to India permanently to maintain the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act of 1949 -- Findings of the Rent Controller holding the landlord not entitled to file the ejectment petitions on the ground that he had not returned to India permanently, not maintainable.

(Para 7)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI Landlord – Ownership -- Will dated 29.01.1980 – Death of testator on 28.3.1983 – Shops were constructed in the year 1988-89 -- Shops were not in existence at the time of execution of the Will or up to death of the testator, the same could not have been bequeathed by the Will in question -- Therefore, there is no basis for the landlord to claim ownership of the shops on the basis of his father’s Will -- That being the position, the essential prerequisite for the landlord to seek immediate possession of the shops in question by applying u/s 13-B of the Act of 1949, is not established, as his ownership of the shops is not proved -- NRI landlord not being owner of the shops in question, could not have filed the ejectment application u/s 13-B of the Act of 1949, and the same was rightly dismissed by the Controller.

(Para 12-14)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need – Subsequent event – Effect of -- Need of the landlord to occupy the demised premises is to be seen on the date of filing of the eviction petition -- Merely because on account of pendency of the eviction petition before the Courts leading to the landlord or his family members entering into other business or starting their business in alternative accommodation, cannot be the basis to contend that bona fide need of the demised premises no longer subsists -- If he/she looks for alternate accommodation or takes up any other vocation to establish and earn for himself/herself, that cannot be a circumstance against the landlord, nor can that be a ground to decline ejectment of the tenant.

(Para 11.3)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 -- Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Mesne profit – Eviction of tenant -- Registered lease deed in vicinity showing rent of Rs.1,57,500/- p.m. -- Solely on account of the same, no specific assessment of the mesne profits can be made -- Age of the building, nature of construction and the extent of building to be user friendly, has to be taken into consideration -- Location of showrooms also to be looked into – Rs.85,000/- per month, as mesne profits, held to be appropriate.

(Para 17-19)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 -- Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Mesne profit – Eviction of tenant – Appeal -- Mere preferring of an appeal does not operate as stay on the eviction order -- Till the decision of the appeal, the Courts are supposed to watch the interest of the landlord also -- Courts are required to strike a balance between the two and fix the extent of mesne profits, which should not be exorbitant, to such an extent that the tenant is forced to quit his claim and be deprived of the fruits of his success, in the event of appeal, being allowed.

(Para 18)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need -- Landlord required the demised premises for his personal use to open an office for his business in the adjoining shops -- Therefore, it cannot be said that he concealed the fact of being in occupation of the adjoining shops; rather, it provided him a valid ground to seek eviction – Nearby shop rented out before filing of the ejectment application will not have any effect on the landlord’s bona fide need -- Landlord is the best judge of his needs and requirements – Need held to be bonafide concurrently by the Authorities below – Ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the landlord upheld.

(Para 8-10, 13)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Arrears of rent prior to becoming owner/landlord – Right of -- Demised premises rented out to the tenant only on 06.08.2013 -- Rent agreement was also entered into between the parties on 06.08.2013, when the shop/demised premises fell to the share of landlord, and 2,000 per month was agreed as the monthly rent -- In case any amount was due to the landlord prior to his becoming of the owner/landlord, the same could not be considered as rent due to him under the Act of 1949 -- Ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent from April, 1999 to 05.10.2011 at the rate of 1,000, is held not maintainable.

(Para 12, 13)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- NRI Landlord – Bonafide need -- Alternative site available – Effect of -- It is trite that when an eviction is sought by a NRI landlord u/s 13-B, a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine -- Tenant would necessarily have to give all the facts and particulars supported by the relevant documentary evidence in support of his pleas -- U/s 13-B, a landlord is entitled to get only one building vacated irrespective of the number of tenants and the choice of the building has been left entirely to the landlord -- Argument that a vacant piece of land is available with the landlord-respondent cannot be accepted – Eviction order upheld.

(Para 10)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13, 15 -- Bonafide need for sons – Crucial date for determining bonafide need – Need  of the landlord is to be seen at the time of filing of the eviction petition -- Pendency of litigation cannot be allowed to work to the advantage of either of the parties -- Sons have completed their education and started to earn for themselves, that cannot be a ground to defeat the eviction petition -- No ground to entertain the application seeking to place the subsequent events on record – Eviction order, upheld – Revision dismissed, petitioner-tenant granted three months’ time to vacate the demised premises and handover its possession to the respondents-landlords. Gaya Prasad’s case 2001 (2) SCC 604 relied.

(Para 1, 3, 13.2-16)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 15 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Impleadment as party in revision -- Applicant himself appeared as RW-3 before the Rent Controller and testified in support of the tenant -- Despite being well aware of the eviction proceedings, he never sought to be impleaded as a party respondent before the Rent Controller -- Therefore, there is no reason to entertain his application for being impleaded as a party respondent.

(Para 14)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Eviction of tenant – Mesne profit – Stay of eviction order by Appellate Authority and assessed the mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month – Appellate Authority referred to the Rent Agreement, whereby a shop situated in the same area have been let out with the monthly rent @ Rs.31,000/- for the same purpose – Held, by no stretch of imagination, assessment of mesne profit be construed to be exorbitant or excessive at all.

(Para 5)

Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), Section 69(2) – Eviction petition by un-registered partnership firm under rent law -- Bar of Section 69(2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 -- To attract the bar of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act the contract in question must be the one entered into by firm with the third-party defendant and must also be the one entered into by the plaintiff firm in the course of its business dealings -- Section 69(2) is not a bar to a suit by an unregistered firm if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right – Right to evict a tenant was not a right arising from a contract but it was a common law right or a statutory right – Tenant’ application for dismissal of the ejectment petition dismissed by Rent Controller – Court do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 2, 16, 17)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Provisional assessment of rent -- Once the relationship of the landlord and tenant is admitted, an obligation is cast upon the Rent Controller to make an assessment of the provisional rent and further that if the final adjudication by the Rent Controller is at variance with his provisional order of assessment, the Rent Controller can order the refund of the said amount found to have been paid in excess – In the absence of any document to show that the rent stood paid by the tenant-petitioner as alleged, the orders passed by the authorities below cannot be faulted with.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Rent laws – Eviction of tenant – Direction for expediting execution – Eviction by Rent Controller on 21.02.2018, appeal was dismissed on 26.07.2022 -- Execution petition on 16.03.2022, respondent-tenant appeared before the executing court and the case was adjourned for filing objections -- However, objections were not filed on the adjourned date nor on the next date -- Case now stands adjourned to 20.01.2023 for filing objections – Direction given to Executing Court to decide the execution application as expeditiously as possible without affording unnecessary adjournments to the respondent-judgment debtor.

(Para 1-5)

A. Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 24 – NRI Landlord -- Leave to contest – Delay in application – Condonation of delay -- Application for leave to contest was not filed by the revisionist/tenant within stipulated period of 15 days from putting in appearance in the Court -- Both the Courts below returned concurrent findings that Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to condone such delay – Held, order/judgment passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity not perverse or passed in an arbitrary manner – Revision dismissed.

(Para 13-20)

B. Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 38 (4)(5) – NRI Landlord -- Leave to contest – Service of summons --  Purpose of sending notice to the tenant is to apprise him/her about filing of ejectment petition again him/her and to approach the Rent Controller seeking leave to defend the petition – Provision that notice should be sent to the respondent as per registered AD post under postal certificate as well as by way of affixation, are meant to get the service effected upon the respondent in any eventuality not leave anything to chance -- It cannot be interpreted in the manner that although the tenant has been served through a particular mode, then his service is to be got effected by time and again through other methods also.

(Para 16)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need of son – Eviction of tenant -- Mortgage of adjoining shop to tenant – Effect of -- Adjoining shop was lying vacant prior to the year 2011, was mortgaged by the landlady with the tenant and the possession was also given to him in lieu of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, so that she could purchase 1/3rd share in the building -- Son of the landlady completed his diploma only in the year 2012, therefore, the necessity to set up his business only arose thereafter when he was unable to find any suitable employment and could not have possibly arisen prior thereto -- Necessity of the landlady cannot be doubted on the said ground.

(Para 13)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949),Section 13 -- Bonafide need of son – Eviction of tenant -- Requirement of a landlord/landlady is presumed to be genuine unless shown to the contrary, by way of cogent evidence – Landlord/landlady being the best judge of his/her requirement, cannot certainly be dictated by a tenant as to how, where and in what manner he/she should or should not start his/her business -- Tenant cannot be allowed to question the financial capacity of the landlord/landlady in eviction proceedings -- Landlady, who is a divorcee, requires the demised premises to set up a business for her only son, so as to settle him -- Necessity of the landlady held to be genuine and bonafide.

(Para 14)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949),Section 13(3)(a(ii) – Bonafide need -- Eviction of tenant -- Non-pleadings of statutory ingredients -- Effect of -- Tenant in his written reply has nowhere stated that the landlady had other suitable place for settling her son or that they had vacated any such premises without any sufficient cause after commencement of the Act -- Merely because the ingredients were not pleaded in clear words, such technicality would not be a ground by itself to throw away the petition of the landlady – No prejudice caused to tenant by such non-pleading of the statutory ingredients – Eviction order upheld.

(Para 1, 16, 17)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 13 -- Bonafide need – Landlord owns other shops – Tenant’s hardship – Effect of -- Landlord is the best judge of his needs -- Landlord sought ejectment to make a place for placing shoes of the worshippers, who visit the temple frequently -- Demised shop is situated just nearby the temple -- Simply because the landlord owns other shops in the premises, or that the tenant will be put to hardship, cannot be ground to deny the ejectment, once the landlord is able to convince about his bonafide need – Revision against eviction order, dismissed.

(Para 1, 5)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Eviction of tenant – Mesne profit – Tenant-petitioner is occupying the entire first and second floors of SCO -- Shop-cum-Office situated in one of the prime commercial sectors of Chandigarh -- Appellate authority deemed it proper to assess the mesne profits @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month -- Keeping in view the location of the property in dispute and the fact that the premises in the vicinity are going on rent for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- per month, mesne profits as assessed by the Appellate Authority is not excessive – Revision dismissed.

(Para 5-11)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant -- Provisional assessment of rent – Landlord-tenant dispute between brothers -- Property in dispute registered in the name of the father of the parties – Respondent approached the Rent Controller claiming himself to be a landlord on the basis of some oral tenancy -- No averment of any receipts having been issued by the respondent qua the rent received by him -- Prima facie there appears to be no evidence on the basis of which it could be said that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties – Petitioner, the real brother of the respondent residing in the said property for over a period of two decades – Rent Controller assessing the provisional rent cannot be sustained and subsequently the order of ejectment also cannot be sustained – Impugned orders set aside -- Rent Controller shall frame a specific issue as to whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and incase such an issue is decided in favour of the respondent herein, no opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner herein to tender the arrears of rent.

(Para 7-10)