East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Eviction petition – Delay in disposal – Directions issued -- Contention that entire evidence of both the sides completed on 28.02.2019 and, thereafter, the matter is not being disposed off and, thus, defeating the very rights of the petitioners to speedy disposal of the matter and dispensation of justice -- Directions issued to the Court of learned Rent Controller that Rent Petition be disposed off expeditiously preferably within a period of one month.

(Para 3,4)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) , Section 13 -- Bonafide need – Eviction of tenant -- It is settled law that the tenant cannot dictate the terms and the landlord can use the premises as per his choice taking into account his bona fide need therefor -- Eight months' time granted to tenant to vacate the demised premises.

(Para 4)

A. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(1)(d) -- Monthly tenancy – Clause for increase of 10% after one year -- Compulsory registration – Requirement of -- Monthly tenancy was created on payment of rent of Rs.2,000/- per month -- Payment was to be made before 5th of each month to the owner -- Rent deed does not provide for any specific period for which the rent deed was executed

--       Rent deed does not reserve yearly rent

--       There is no mention in the rent deed that it is a lease from year to year.

--       Two conditions : First, if payment of rent in any month is not made up to 5th of month, owner shall have right to get the shop evicted and second if the owner is in need of shop, he by serving notice of one month can get the shop vacated.

--      Clause for increase of rent by 10% each year for the period of tenancy, though the period of tenancy was unspecified. Clause was a contingent clause which binds the tenant to increase the rent by 10% each year, which was contingent on tenancy to continue for more than a year, but that clause cannot be read to mean that the tenancy was for a period of more than one year.

Rent note was not such kind of rent note, which requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(d).

(Para 13-19)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Arrears of rent – Non-registration of rent note – Effect of -- Rent Controller had returned a finding regarding rate of rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month and further the tenant was liable to pay the house tax, which was not paid from 1999 to 2005 and the decree of eviction was passed – Appellate Court merely on the finding that landlord cannot claim 10% increase of rent every year since the document was not registered had allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment -- No specific finding by the Appellate Court regarding the liability of the tenant to pay the house tax -- No finding was returned by the Appellate Court that tenant was not in default and tenant has deposited the necessary amount to save himself from eviction – Held, judgment of the Appellate Court is unsustainable – Eviction order passed by Rent Controller, restored.

(Para 20)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need – Eviction of tenant -- Non-occupation by landlord – Remedy of – Pandemic Covid-19 – Landlord, while stepped into the witness-box, has categorically stated as regards the personal necessity and as regards the fact that he alongwith his son and his family intends to move to the demised premises -- Contention that the landlord infact intends to convert the demised premises into paying guest accommodation cannot be accepted – In case the landlord does not occupy the demised premises or lets it out to somebody else within one year from taking possession, it shall always be open to the petitioners to bring the said fact to the notice of the Rent Controller and seek appropriate orders for restoration of possession – Eviction order upheld -- Keeping in view the spread of pandemic 'COVID-19', the time to vacate the demised premises extended upto 31.12.2020 provided the petitioners furnish an undertaking to this effect within a period of three weeks.

(Para 8-11)

A. Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972), Section 21(1)(a), 30(1), 34 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Notice of six months for release of shop – Service of -- Concurrent finding of fact – Power of Writ court -- Mere receipt of notice having been sent under certificate of posting, in itself, may not be sufficient proof of service, but if the same is coupled with other facts and circumstances which go to show that the party had notice, the same could be held to be sufficient service on the party -- Law permits filing of a document to be filed along with an affidavit, which has been done so in this case -- Further, there was clear admission of the respondent (tenant) that the appellant was his landlord (for which sale deed had been supplied to the tenant) and subsequent act of the respondent (tenant) depositing the rent under Section 30(1) of the Rent Control Act in the Court and other attending circumstances, as have been considered by the Prescribed Authority, would all clearly go to show that there was sufficient proof of service of notice, which finding of fact has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority -- No reason for the Writ Court to have unsettled such concurrent findings of fact.

(Para 18)

B. Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972), Section 21(1)(a), 34 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Eviction of tenant – Finding of fact – Power of Writ court -- Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have given clear finding of fact that the hardship of the appellant (landlord) was greater than that of the respondent (tenant) and, thus, allowed the release application, which finding has not been specifically considered or categorically upset by the Writ Court -- Such finding of fact does not require any interference.

(Para 19)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13, 15 -- Eviction petition on ground of unfit and unsafe for human inhabitation -- Building not fallen yet – Earlier petition on same ground dismissed – Effect of – Rent Controller allowed the petition -- Ld. Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of tenant, dismissed the eviction petition while ignoring expert report that previous petition filed in the year 1972 was dismissed and the order was upheld by the High Court – Further ignored the report of a building expert on the ground that the so called expert examined by the landlords is only a mechanical engineer – Held, both the reasons assigned by the appellate authority are erroneous:

-- Building Expert, examined by the landlords has done extensive study of architectural engineering specially for buildings during his study from IIT at New Delhi. He has a rich experience of 35 years working as a licenced architect with Municipal Committees of Panipat, Rewari and Mahindergarh.

-- Previous petition was filed in 1972, whereas the present petition was filed after a period of 33 years i.e. in the year 2005 -- Subsequent dismissal of appeal or revision against the judgment of the learned Rent Controller would not in any way help the tenants unless it is proved that during the pendency of appeal or revision petition, the condition of the building was re-assessed.

Held, for proving that the building has become unfit and unsafe, it is not necessary that the building must have already fallen. Petition allowed, order passed by the appellate authority set aside and that of the learned Rent Controller restored -- Tenant granted two months' time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlords.

(Para 19-28)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 13-B – Owner – Bonafide need of family members – Object of -- Section 13 provides grounds of eviction available to the landlord against a tenant in normal cases -- Under Section 13(3)(a) (i) of the 1949 Act, the words used are that “he requires for its own occupation” -- Hon'ble the Supreme Court has interpreted the word “he” to include requirement of his immediate family members -- Reason behind the aforesaid interpretation was to give effect to the provisions of the Act in a purposeful manner -- It is for this reason that the legislature while subsequently adding Section 13-B has not only used the word “his or her use” but also included the requirements of other family members also.

(Para 11)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Owner – Eviction on the ground of bonafide need of landlord/owner – Death of landlord/owner – Effect of -- Held, Statute itself recognizes the necessity of not only the owner but also of the persons ordinarily residing and dependent on him or her, death of the landowner during the pendency of the revision petition would not adversely affect the rights of his heirs -- Jurisdiction of the High Court while hearing revision petitions against the order of eviction is limited and subsequent event unless it completely wipes away or removes the entire basis of the claim, the High Court in exercise revisionary jurisdiction would be slow to reverse the order of eviction on this ground -- Revision petitions are ordered to be dismissed.

(Para 3, 19-22)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 13 -- Bona fide need of doctor -- Bona fide requirement of the landlady cannot be doubted only because she has subsequently got married and has started living at Noida -- Rights of the party crystallized on the day the petition was filed -- Landlady has a degree of Bachelor's in Dental Science -- She was practicing alongwith her father before marriage -- In such circumstances, the bona fide requirement of the landlady is established.

(Para 9)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), Section 19, 22 -- Eviction proceedings – Provisional assessment of rent -- Admission of rent by partner – Admissibility of -- Held, in absence of any usage or custom of trade to the contrary, any admission made by a partner with respect to any liability in a suit or proceedings against the firm shall not be covered by the implied authority of a partner -- Section 19 and 22 have to be harmoniously construed -- Admission of said partner cannot be treated to be binding on the firm -- Orders assessing/affirming the provisional rent are set aside – Rent Controller to re-assess the provisional rent as per the material available on the file.

(Para 7-18)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need – Pleadings for other properties – Requirement of -- There is no requirement that the landlord must aver in his ejectment petition about the other properties which were owned by him or are in his possession.

(Para 17)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need – Sale of other shops by landlord – Effect of -- Sale of shop, 11 years before filing of the petition is not sufficient to non-suit the landlord -- Second premises which was sold by the landlord is located in a market dealing with footwears whereas the landlord requires the premises for opening cloth business – Even this shop was in possession of tenant and dilapidated condition -- It cannot be said that the landlords have not filed the present ejectment petition with clean hands.

(Para 18, 19)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Impaired the value and the utility -- Structural alteration itself is not a ground for eviction -- Landlord is required to prove that the tenant has impaired the value and the utility of the building or the rented land.

(Para 22)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- NRI Landlord -- Rent petition under 1949 Act – Implementation of 1995 Act – Effect of -- Rent petition filed under the 1949 Act is maintainable, particularly when it was filed before 29.08.2014.

(Para 9)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- NRI landlord -- Leave to contest -- No material has been produced on record to prove that the respondent is not owner -- Landlord had purchased the property through a registered sale deed  -- It is recorded therein that the premises purchased has 6 rooms on the main road -- In the absence of any material to the contrary, learned Rent Controller has rightly concluded that the respondent-landlord is the owner of the property --- Revision petition against the order declining to grant leave to contest dismissed.

(Para 12)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 15(5) -- Evidence closed -- Maintainability of revision petition -- Petitioners could not satisfy regarding the maintainability of the revision – Revision petition dismissed -- Dismissal of the revision would not be any bar to the petitioners for taking recourse to the remedy available under law.

(Para 4-8)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- NRI Landlord – Eviction petition -- Sale of property by Father – Effect of -- Sale of other property by the father, the right accruing in favour of the petitioner would not be defeated.

(Para 8)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- NRI Landlord -- Bonafide need – Return to India – Requirement of – It is not the requirement of law that the landlord before filing the petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act must return to India -- Mere intention to return to home country supported by an affidavit is sufficient.

(Para 9)

A. Reliance upon Headnotes/caption of the judgment in Law Journal – Such captions/headnotes are not the judgments of the Court -- This is basically a summary prepared by editorial staff of a law journal, after examination of the judgment -- Editorial staff prepares the short notes/captions as per their understanding -- There are number of cases where the captions/headnotes of the law report are not true reflection of what has been held in the judgment -- Courts advised to carefully read the entire judgment before basing their judgment/order on the caption of the judgment cited -- Presiding Judges of the Courts would thoroughly read the judgment cited before proceeding to rely upon.

(Para 6)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(a), 2(d), 2(g), 2(h) – Residential building – Non-residential building – Scheduled building -- Non-residential building is a building which is being used solely for the purpose of business or trade -- Whereas residential building means any building which is not a non-residential building -- Scheduled building is concerning a residential building which is being used by a person engaged in one or more profession specified in schedule 1 of the Act, partly for a business and partly for his residence.

(Para 9)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-A, 18-A -- Specified Landlord--- Retired employee/landlord – Eviction petition for commercial purpose – Maintainability of – Eviction sought for a commercial purpose whereas right u/s 13-A is available if the landlord intends to reside in his residential building or scheduled building -- Petition u/s 13-A of the Act cannot be filed with respect to a non-residential building if the building is required for a non-residential purpose.

(Para 9-13)

D. Ratio decidendi -- Obiter dicta -- A “ratio decidendi” in a judgment is binding and not obiter dicta.

(Para 10)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- NRI Landlord – Eviction petition through power of attorney – Maintainability of – Held, it would not be appropriate to hold that petition u/s 13-B of the 1949 Act cannot be filed through power of attorney.

(Para 9)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(a), 13-B – NRI Landlord -- Various petition – Maintainability of -- Definition of “building” includes the entire building as also a part of a building -- All the premises in possession of the various tenants are part of the same building and, therefore, covered by the definition of a building -- Hence, the landowner is entitled to maintain the various petitions filed against various tenants of the same building.

(Para 10)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 8 -- NRI-Landlord – First petition dismissed for non-prosecution -- Second petition – Maintainability of -- Previous petition filed u/s 13-B by the landlord was dismissed for non-prosecution under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC -- Strictly the provisions of the CPC are not applicable, however, the broader principles of the CPC would be applicable -- As per the CPC, second petition/suit on the same cause of action is maintainable if the previous suit or petition was dismissed in default in the absence of both the parties – Held, second petition would not be barred.

(Para 11-13)

A. Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (18 of 1960), Section 2(6), Section 10 -- Landlady – Tenant -- Suit premises was leased by appellant – Rent is being paid -- It would not be open to deny the status of the appellant as a landlady – Tenant cannot challenge the authority of the appellant to file an eviction petition – Appellant can be said to be the landlady even within the definition of Section 2(6) of the Act and therefore the eviction petition at the instance of the appellant would be maintainable.

(Para 6.1)

B. Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (18 of 1960), Section 2(6), Section 10 -- Sub-letting – Onus to prove -- To constitute a sub-letting, there must be a parting of legal possession, i.e., possession with the right to include and also right to exclude others -- When the eviction is sought on the ground of sub-letting, the onus to prove sub-letting is on the landlord -- If the landlord prima facie shows that the third party is in exclusive possession of the premises let out for valuable consideration, it would then be for the tenant to rebut the evidence.

(Para 8)

C. Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (18 of 1960), Section 2(6), Section 10 -- Sub-letting – Partnership firm – Ground of -- No genuine partnership between original tenant/respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 -- Exclusive possession of the suit premises is with respondent no.2 -- Respondent no.2 is running the business in the suit premises as an owner -- Sales Tax Certificate and the licence are in the name of respondent no.2 -- Bank accounts are in the name of respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 is exclusively dealing with the bank accounts -- A clear case of sub-letting has been made out -- There shall be a decree on the ground of sub-letting -- Respondents to handover the peaceful possession of the suit premises to the appellant within a period of three months on payment of full arrears of rent within a period of four weeks.

(Para 9)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), Section 87 – Constitution of India, Article 246(4), Seventh Schedule -- NRI landlord Amendment -- Extension to Chandigarh by Notification – Challenge to – Whether Notification dated 09.10.2009 issued under Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act extending Section 13-B of the Rent Act to Chandigarh by executive action is invalid? – Challenge predicated on the doctrine of excessive delegation, separation of powers, doctrine of the law of agency, fails and must be rejected -- Such challenge must also be rejected in view of the large number of eviction suits filed by Non-Resident Indian landlords on the strength of Notification dated 09.10.2009 who would be left remediless if contentions to the contrary are accepted.

(16-19)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), Section 87 – Constitution of India, Article 246(4), Seventh Schedule -- NRI Landlord Amendment -- Whether amendments made vide the Amendment Act with regard to the rights of Non-Resident Indians by the State Legislature of Punjab were beyond its competence? – Held, State legislature was well within its competence -- In the context of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and as the subject matter falls within the Concurrent List, it will be immaterial to decide on the competence of the legislating body -- Power to make laws in respect of a Union Territory vests with the Parliament under Article 246(4) -- In terms of Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act, the power to extend laws to the Union Territory of Chandigarh vests with the Central Government, that is the Parliament or the Central Executive, as the case may be, and is permissible.

(Para 20-28)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- NRI Landlord Amendment -- Whether Section 13-B of the Rent Act is arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as it does not afford any legal remedy to the tenants? – Held, by providing for a simplified procedure of eviction by the Non-Resident Indians, Section 13-B does not dilute the rights of tenants -- It gives a chance to the tenants on merits to establish their case and when justified and necessary to take the matter to trial -- By no means, therefore, Section 13-B can be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable.

(Para 29-36)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- NRI Landlord Amendment -- Whether classifying Non-Resident Indian landlords as a separate category renders Section 13-B invalid and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution? – Held, Section 13-B of the Rent Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional because it grants a right to claim eviction for bona fide need by summary procedure to a certain group of landlords, that is, Non-Resident Indians subject to and on the satisfaction of statutory conditions which incorporate a check on frivolous evictions – Section 13-B cannot, therefore, be treated as an arbitrary classification that infringes and violates Article 14 of the Constitution -- Challenge predicated on the basis of unconstitutionality of the classification is rejected.

(Para 38-45)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 15(6) – Revisional jurisdiction -- Law is well settled that while exercising revisional power, the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence on record: both oral or documentary -- Further the consideration while exercising revisional jurisdiction is confined to find out whether the findings of fact rendered by the Court or Authority below were according to law and did not suffer from any error of law.

(Para 14)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 15(6) – Eviction by Rent Controller affirmed by Appellate Authority -- Revisional jurisdiction -- High Court was aware that it was exercising Revisional Powers, the judgment does not spell out or advert to any perversity in the findings rendered either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority – Held, High Court was not justified in exercising revisional power in the matter – High Court’s judgment and order set aside and decrees for eviction passed by the Rent Controllers restored.

(Para 3, 4, 15, 16)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need – Pleadings for not occupying -- Landlord is required to plead only in respect of his not occupying another building and non-vacation of such building without sufficient cause – Legislature in its wisdom has not obligated the landlord to state about building(s) owned by him in the urban area concerned.

(Para 10)

B. Law of Evidence – Witness deposition -- Testimony of a witness is to be read as a whole -- A single sentence in the statement of a witness cannot be read in isolation as the same may lead to miscarriage of justice.

(Para 10)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c) -- Landlord – Definition of -- Tenancy created by life interest – Status of -- A landlord within the meaning of Section 2(c) is not necessarily the owner of the property -- Definition of the expression ‘landlord’ is relatable to an entitlement to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land -- Life estate enabled her to create a tenancy and receive the rent from the tenants on the property -- She fulfilled the description of a ‘landlord’ under Section 2(c) of the Act 1949.

(Para 4-12, 17)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(i), 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Tenancy created by life interest/ landlord – Death of life interest/ landlord -- Tenant – Status of -- First respondent in whose favour a tenancy was created acquired a status of a statutory tenant and that status does not stand obviated – Statutory protection afforded to the tenant did not cease to exist upon the death -- Remedy available to remove the first respondent from the property is by pursuing eviction proceedings on one or more of the grounds available in the enactment – It was not open to the civil court to entertain a suit for possession founded on the hypothesis that the tenant is a trespasser.

(Para 15-17)

A. Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 24(3) -- NRI landlord – Eviction petition -- Return to India -- Eviction petition u/s 24(3) of the 1995 Act would be maintainable as long as there was an averment made that the landlord wanted to come back to India to reside permanently.

(Para 9)

B. Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 24(3), 38(7)(b) – NRI landlord – Leave to defend – Extension of -- Even though summons might have been wrongly effected but on appearance, opportunity to file his reply/ leave to defend beyond a period of 16 days given by the Rent Controller -- Rent Controller suo-moto allowed further time to the respondent to file his leave to defend, without there being any such application – No such provision to suo-moto allow/extend time for leave to defend – Order set aside.

(Para 11,12)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Eviction petition – Death of tenant – Impleadment of all legal heirs as party -- One of legal heir impleaded as party, who is doing business in the shop – None of the plea of applicants that they are in possession of the shop in question after death of tenant and the person impleaded as legal heir is not in possession of the same – Application for impleadment dismissed. Suresh Kumar Kohli’s case 2018(3) CCC 769 relied.

(Para 2-6)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Sale of tenanted premises – Arrears of rent – Premises in question were purchased by the respondent, he stepped into the shoes of the original landlord – Rightly held by both the learned courts below that ground of arrears of rent does not survive to the respondent.

(Para 11)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need -- Landlord is the sole judge of his bonafide requirement and the court is not to proceed on a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide.

(Para 12)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need -- Son wanted to start independent office -- Merely because the respondent-landlord's father was having an office at the backside of the demise premises, does not preclude the landlord from claiming bonafide personal necessity.

 (Para 12)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Declaration of other property -- There is no requirement of a declaration of the details of the property belonging to the landlord's father/parent.

(Para 13)

A. Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972), Section 21(1)(a) – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Maintainability of rent petition – Pleading and evidence – Requirement of -- Writ jurisdiction -- Respondent failed to raise the plea of maintainability, the Prescribed Authority rightly did not decide this question either way -- Again did not raise the plea of maintainability before the First Appellate Court in his appeal and, therefore, the First Appellate Court was also right in not deciding this question either way -- Such plea cannot be allowed to be raised by the party for the first time in third Court whether in appeal, revision or writ, as the case may be, for want of any factual foundation and finding.

(Para 17-22)

B. Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972), Section 21(1)(a) – Nature of tenancy –Pleading and evidence – Requirement of -- Question as to whether the tenancy is solely for residential purpose or for commercial purpose or for composite purpose, i.e., for both residential and commercial purpose, is not a pure question of law but is a question of fact, therefore, this question is required to be first pleaded and then proved by adducing evidence.

(Para 23)

C. Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972), Section 21(1)(a) – Bonafide need – Residential as well as Commercial -- Composite Tenancy -- Some portion of tenanted premises was being used for residence and some portion for commercial purpose, i.e., residential and commercial, then the landlord will have a right to seek the tenant’s eviction from the tenanted premises for his residential need or commercial need, as the case may be.

(Para 25)

D. Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972), Section 21(1)(a) – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Bonafide need -- Concurrent findings of facts – Writ jurisdiction -- Concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts below were binding on the writ Court because these findings were based on appreciation of evidence and, therefore, did not call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction.

(Para 27)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction petition – Subsequent petition dismissed in default/ withdrawn – It cannot be said that earlier petition should be dismissed.

(Para 13)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Landlord-tenant relationship -- Landlady alleging shops were given on licence -- This by itself cannot lead to the acceptance of the argument by tenant that she has not accepted the petitioners to be the tenants under her, therefore, petition is not maintainable.

(Para 14)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Age of landlord – Step to start business -- Requirement of the landlord has to be seen from his perspective -- Landlord is indeed the best judge of his or her requirement – Age of landlady cannot be held against her -- Landlord cannot be non-suited only because specific steps taken for start of business have not been proved on record.

(Para 17)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 111 (a) to (h)  -- Lease – Determination of lease/tenancy -- Agreement to sell between Lessor and Lessee – Whether would ipso facto result in determination of the lease and severe the relationship of lessor and the lessee – Held, none of the conditions of Agreement provides much less in specific terms as to what will be the fate of the tenancy – None of the conditions can be construed for holding that the parties intended to surrender the tenancy rights -- A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property – Conditions set out in the agreement do not make out a case of express surrender under clause (e) or implied surrender under clause (f) of Section 111 of the TP Act – Tenancy in question between the parties did not result in determination and same remain unaffected.

 (Para 24-38)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 91, 92, 115 – Registered Mortgage deed – Landlord-tenant relationship – Estoppel -- Defendant having entered in possession of the shop under the mortgage deed, he is obviously estopped from denying execution of mortgage deed and rather stating that he has been in possession of the shop as a tenant -- Merely because in the house tax department of the Municipal Corporation, the defendant is shown to be tenant does not mean that his status has in fact been that of a tenant.

(Para 15-18)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Arrears of rent – Provisional assessment of rent -- Ejectment petition in January, 2015 -- Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent on 7.8.2015 – Impugned order, vide which petitioner was obligated to pay arrears of rent even from 01.08.2015 till date i.e. 29.01.2018 cannot be allowed to sustain and accordingly set aside.

(Para 8)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 116 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Landlord-tenant relationship – Mutation in favour of tenant – Eviction of tenant -- Estoppel -- Additional evidence – Tenant without surrendering possession of the property to his own landlord will be estopped from contending by operation of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act that he had acquired larger right and, therefore, he cannot be evicted – Sanction of mutation neither relevant nor material for deciding the instant controversy.

(Para 19)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 15 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Additional evidence – Non-disposal by Appellate Authority -- Effect of – There is no enunciation that non-disposal of an application for additional evidence by the Appellate Authority would automatically vitiate final order or warrant remittance of the matter to the court below for decision afresh along with application for additional evidence --  If Revisional Court considers the application and finds it meritless or inconsequential for decision of the controversy, no useful purpose would be served by remand of the case and decision afresh.

(Para 19)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 116 -- Landlord-tenant relationship – Question of title -- Estoppel to -- In view of earlier decision that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties that has attained finality, it is not open for the petitioner to raise any such issue nor can he be permitted to raise the question of title before the Rent authorities with limited jurisdiction.

(Para 19)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant – Pleadings -- Section 13(3)(a)(ii) (b) and (c) of the Act makes it imperative for the landlord to specifically plead all the ingredients in clauses (b) and (c) i.e. that he/she is not occupying another residential building and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause.

(Para 22)

E. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Cease to occupy – Electricity usage -- Eviction application was filed on 20.11.2000 – It evident that meter reading from 13.3.2000 till November 2000 records consumption of units more than 100 on each interval of two months – Findings of the courts ordering eviction on the ground of cease to occupy suffer from illegality and perversity and accordingly set aside.

(Para 23-26)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 13 -- Residential building requires for non-residential purpose -- Non-residential building – Bonafide requirement -- After the judgment in the case of Ved Parkash Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, (1997-2) PLR 775, there is no distinction between the residential and non-residential building vis-a-vis ground of bona fide personal requirement, it shall not be correct to hold that the premises let out for residential purpose, eviction can only be sought for bona fide requirement of residential purpose only.

(Para 14)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 11, 13 -- Residential building requires for non-residential purpose – Bonafide requirement – Change of user -- Although, it is true that Section 11 provides that no person shall convert a residential building into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller -- However, such permission can be taken after the building comes into the possession of the landlord -- Once, there is no prohibition by the Local Authority from using the premises for commercial (non-residential) purpose, the requirement of the landlady, who is no more, for her son cannot be said to be not a bona fide requirement.

(Para 17)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(5) – Revision by tenant – Right of landlord to raise issue without revision -- Question:- When a prayer is made by landlord seeking eviction of the tenant on several grounds and an order is passed on anyone of them, can he in a revision petition filed by the tenant, in one hand support the order of eviction and urge before the Revisional Court to uphold the eviction order and on the other hand dispute the correctness of findings adverse to him without filing separate petition? -- Question is answered in favour of the respondent-landlord.

(Para 2, 13)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide requirement of landlord -- Landlord is a best Judge of his requirement and the tenants cannot impose their opinion -- Same is the position with respect to Courts -- Bona fide requirement has to be seen from the prism of personal necessity of a landlord.

(Para 12)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15, 17 – Power of Executing Court -- Role of the executing Court is only to execute the order/decree and it cannot go beyond the observations made by the Court/Authority in its judgment/order -- Objections dismissed as the issues raised have already been decided in the order passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority -- No legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Rent Controller, calling for interference in revision.

(Para 10)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15, 17 – Description of property – Rectification of -- Power of Executing Court -- Ejectment as per order of learned Rent Controller has been ordered from the demised premises and the description and identity of the same is to be looked into by the Executing Court – Even if, there is some mistake in the details of demised premises in the execution application, the same can be rectified by the Executing Court.

(Para 12)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13, 14 -- Material alteration -- Res-judicata -- No evidence that respondent/landlord in earlier rent petition has raised similar plea regarding addition and alteration in demised premises, as raised in this petition -- Principle of res judicata is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case.

(Para 8)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13, 14 -- Material alteration -- Perusal of the site plan Ex.P3 shows that the three shops have been converted into one hall, kitchen, store, space for gas bhatti, coal bhatti, water tank, washing space etc. -- RW1-Tenant proves that the Walls were in existence at the time of compromise and were removed later on -- Statement of her son RW3 shows that in order to give support to the lintel the pillars were erected which shows that the walls were load bearing walls – Tenant has committed material alteration and addition in the demised premises without the consent of the landlord – Eviction order upheld.

(Para 8-14)

C. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13, 14 -- Material alteration -- Examination through attorney -- Non-examination of landlord is immaterial as his attorney has been examined, who has stated that respondent-landlord is unable to appear because of paralysis -- Even otherwise, the attorney of landlord is his nephew and was well aware of the facts of the case and Rent Controller has rightly taken note of his testimony as a witness and also as attorney of landlord -- Even otherwise, the case of the landlord is duly proved from the testimony of tenant and her son – Eviction order upheld.

(Para 13,14)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Lessee of Waqf inducted tenant -- Legality of lease – Rent Controller -- Power of -- It is a matter to be seen by Wakf Board whether the lease in favour of Landlord was allowed with the sanction of the Board or without sanction of the Board -- This fact, however, does not fall within the domain of the Rent Controller to decide.

(Para 18)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 56 -- Lessee of Waqf inducted tenant -- Legality of lease – Appellate Authority -- Power of -- By way of amendment of Wakf Act, 1995 in the year 2013, lease of immovable property for a period exceeding 30 years is void -- It is a matter between Wakf Board or the Government that the approval from the State Government for lease of 30 years has been taken or not -- Entire observation of the Appellate Authority that lease in favour of petitioner/appellant landlord was void, hence, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant etc. are without basis, illegal, perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(Para 18)

C. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 85 – Waqf property – Lessee of Waqf inducted tenant -- Landlord-tenant dispute -- Jurisdiction of civil court/Revenue court/authority -- Such a petition does not relate to the subject matter as described in Section 85 Waqf Act barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, revenue Court and any other authority -- Bar of jurisdiction is not attracted in this case as the matter in issue is between landlord and tenant and not with the Wakf Board.

(Para 21-26)

D. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Status of landlord – Challenged by tenant -- Tenant has no authority to challenge the status of landlord.

(Para 23)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Unfit and unsafe for human habitation -- Eviction petition dismissed -- Subsequent event – Cause of action -- If the condition of the premises, as of today, is dilapidated and the appellant is correct in his submission that the Chhajja of the premises had fallen down, it would be open to the appellant to file a fresh petition on the aforesaid ground as these events would furnish a fresh cause of action to the appellant.

(Para 5-8)

A. Eviction of tenant -- It is not necessary for the landlord to make out all the grounds which he has taken in the plaint for claiming eviction of the tenant under the Rent Act -- If one ground of eviction is held made out against the tenant, that ground is sufficient to evict the tenant from the suit premises.

(Para 16,17)

B. Eviction of tenant -- Sub-letting -- Respondent (tenant), since inception, was taking inconsistent stand on the question of sub-letting – He denied having sub-let the suit shop to anyone in his written statement -- Respondent was unable to prove, in categorical terms, as to which capacity, J.M. was sitting in the suit shop - whether as an "employee" or a "business partner" or in any “other capacity” -- Since the respondent had admitted the presence of J.M. in the suit shop, the burden was on him to prove its nature and the capacity in which he used to sit in the suit shop -- As far as the appellants are concerned, they appear to have discharged their initial burden by pleading the necessary facts and then by proving it by evidence that firstly, they let out the suit shop to the respondent and secondly, the respondent has sub-let the suit shop to J.M., who was in its exclusive possession without their consent – Sub-letting against the respondent proved.

(Para 34-43)

C. Eviction of tenant -- Sub-letting -- If the tenant is able to prove that he continues to retain the exclusive possession over the tenanted premises notwithstanding any third party’s induction in the tenanted premises, no case of sub-letting is made out against such tenant.

(Para 44)

D. Eviction of tenant -- Sub-letting -- Sin qua non for proving the case of the sub-letting is that the tenant has either whole or in part transferred or/and parted with the possession of the tenanted premises in favour of any third person without landlord's consent.

(Para 45)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 13 -- Bonafide need of son – Non-appearance of son – Effect of -- Contention of the petitioner/tenant that non-appearance of the son of the landlady in the witness-box is fatal to the action is misjudged and the argument is only noticed to be rejected.

(Para 7)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need of son – Pleadings with respect to non occupation of another building or vacation of same – Requirement of -- Whether landlady was required to plead all the mandatory ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, the answer would depend on; whether tenant has taken the objection in the written statement before it can be said that the tenant has been prejudiced in this regard -- If there is no objection in the written statement by the tenant read together with the fact that when landlady led her evidence to the effect of ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i), then non-pleading of the ingredients would not be fatal to warrant outright dismissal of the ejectment petition.

(Para 8-10)

Bonafide need – Eviction of tenant – Revisional Jurisdiction -- Bonafide requirement has been concurrently found by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority -- High Court should not have ventured to look into the evidence as if in a first appeal and entered a different finding, though another finding might also be possible -- Merely because another view is possible in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot upset the factual findings. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 15 -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 15.

(Para 2)

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) Section 14 -- Eviction of tenant – Sub-letting -- Eviction can be sought by a landlord if the tenant sublets, assigns or otherwise parts with possession without his consent – Parting with the possession of the premises without consent of the landlord was sufficient for eviction of the tenant without getting into the question of sub-letting or assignment.

(Para 9)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A – NRI landlord – Leave to contest – In petition u/s 18-A of Act, no ground regarding the gift deed of two shops was raised – While granting leave to contest, Rent Controller has taken the landlord by surprise on a document which has been placed on record by the tenants, which could not have been adverted to – Impugned order is not liable to be sustained.

(Para 10, 11)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A – NRI landlord – Death of landlord -- Subsequent event –Controversy has to be decided with reference to the pleadings of the parties on the date of institution and on account of the litigation lingering on, subsequent developments are not necessary and relevant for the adjudication of the case.

(Para 16)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A – NRI Landlord – Death of landlord -- Succession had opened on death of landlord -- Property would actually devolve on its survivors and being co-owners they could seek possession.

(Para 17-20)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Material alteration – Eviction of tenant -- Courtyard had been closed and the shops which had independent approach from the eastern side of the courtyard have only one entry which is from shop no.2, from the western side, which has been done by installing a rolling shutter and the common courtyard had been covered by ACC sheets, duly supported by wooden balas -- On the northern side, a cabin has been constructed in shop no.1 which is partitioned from the courtyard by a wooden partition – Alterations have been done which are material in nature and have changed the complete complexion of the building in question, to the detriment of the landlords – Eviction order passed by Ld. Appellate Authority upheld.

(Para 32)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 – Material alteration – Res-judicata -- Earlier petition not being taken to its logical end and on account of the eviction petition being dismissed in default without having been decided on merits, the same would not amount to constructive res judicata against the petitioners and there has to be a decision on merits inter se the parties.

(Para 27-31)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- NRI landlord – Owner -- On the strength of the sale deed, property had been leased out as such to the tenants -- Now they cannot turn around and say that the landlord is not the owner of the property.

(Para 12,13)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- NRI landlord – Owner -- Bonafide need – Subsequent event - In view of the death of the landlord, need has evaporated would be of no help -- Controversy has to be decided with reference to the pleadings of the parties on the date of institution and on account of the litigation lingering on, subsequent developments are not necessary and relevant for the adjudication of the case.

(Para 14)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 58, 60 -- East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(i), 13 -- Registered mortgage – Lifting the veil -- Whether tenancy – Court is actually required to go into the nature of the transaction, practically by lifting the veil, to determine as to whether what was shown to be a mortgage, even by a registered mortgage deed, was indeed that or was actually a security measure for an oral rent agreement -- Neither any evidence on the value of the property led by the appellant-defendant, nor on the income of the respondent-plaintiff at the time when the suit property was mortgaged -- Simply on the oral evidence of the appellant-defendant, it would be difficult for Court to hold that the amount of Rs.6500/- was wholly dis-proportionate to the value of the property– Decree passed by Lower Courts for redemption of mortgage, upheld.

(Para 7, 9, 22)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 2(h) -- Lease agreement between BPCL and land-owner – Expiry of lease -- Licence of Petrol Pump to landowner – Termination of license – Whether the BPCL will remain statutory tenant under Rent Act – Held, when the licence had been terminated by the Corporation itself, and actual possession continued to be that of the land owner, Corporation cannot be held to be in possession of the suit property and consequently a tenant thereupon.

(Para 61)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 2(h), 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Lease agreement between BPCL and land-owner –Licence of Petrol Pump to landowner – Termination of license – Statutory tenancy – Civil suit – Maintainability of -- A statutory Corporation must be seen to be fair to a citizen and not unreasonable, unjust and arbitrary – As regards the possession of the suit property, it is held that physical possession of the premises having always been with the land owner, even in the capacity of a licensee, after cancellation/revocation of licence, his physical possession would be treated as actual possession, with the deemed possession of the Corporation over the suit land having wholly ceased with such revocation/cancellation – As physical possession always having been that of the land-owners, it could no longer consider itself as a tenant over the suit property in terms of Section 2(h) of the Rent Act 1973 and consequently, for seeking removal of the structures of the erstwhile lessee/licensor, the suit as was instituted by the land owner was not without jurisdiction, and Section 13 of the Rent Act of 1973 would have no application to the suit property.

(Para 63-67)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20, 12 -- Mesne profit -- Though physical possession remained with the plaintiff throughout, however, with the infrastructure on the suit land not having been removed by the defendant-Corporation, even after the licence was terminated by it w.e.f. 30.12.2008, the awarding of mesne profit itself is not seen to be without reason.

(Para 68)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(2)(iv) -- Public nuisance – Eviction from tenanted premises -- No usage of the premises in question and on account of non usage a nuisance had been caused to the residents of the area -- Tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct as are a nuisance to the occupiers of buildings in the neighbourhood of the premises on account of not keeping the premises in a fit condition -- Respondents directed to be evicted from the premises in question.

(Para 24-27)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need of son – Attorney of landlord – Deposition of -- Mother was competent to depose on behalf of her husband.

 (Para 3, 7)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need of son – Cause of action -- Date of institution is the relevant date, which in the present case is in the year 2006 -- A decade has gone by since the eviction petition was filed -- Son of landlord is not expected to sit idle to wait for the decision of the proceedings and, therefore, in case he has also set up office in another part of some building would not debar him as such to claim eviction.

(Para 8)

East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(dd), 13-B – NRI landlord – Eviction of tenant -- Ownership is more than 5 years prior to the date of filing – Respondent-landlord, being an NRI, having a Canadian passport, was, thus, entitled for the benefit of Section 13-B of the Act -- Necessary averments had been made that he had returned to India permanently and bona fide required the premises, as such -- Resultantly, eviction was ordered -- Contention that matters are pending consideration before the Apex Court, pertaining to Section 13-B of the Act are without any basis -- In Krishan Kumar & others Vs. Kamla Devi & others 2016 (1) RCR (Rent) 525, the said issue was raised, which was repelled, keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Swami Nath 2010 (9) SCC 452 -- Nothing has been brought on record that any fresh reference is pending before the Apex Court before a Larger Bench, wherein the correctness of the judgments in Baldev Singh Bajwa 2005 (12) SCC 778 and Swami Nath 2010 (9) SCC 452, have been doubted -- Impugned order does not warrant any interference.

(Para 5-10)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13(3)(a)(i) -- Bonafide need of son – Pleadings of non-own and possess of other premises -- Landlord has clarified to the properties which are in his possession as such -- Similarly, while tendering the affidavit the son also clarified the issue -- Thus, it can be safely held that there was no concealment on the part of material facts by the landlord -- Son is not required to plead all the ingredients as he himself is not the landlord of the premises – Son had appeared in the witness-box and deposed in oath that he does not own and possess another non-residential building in the urban area -- Non-pleading of the ingredients would not be fatal and warrant dismissal of the application for ejectment. Gurbaj Singh’s case 2011(3) PLR 653 relied.

(Para 9-14)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Sub-letting -- Lease to Proprietorship concern – Proprietor executing partnership deed with son -- Defence was categorically sought to be disputed by the landlady by taking the plea that it was a sham transaction and had no legal consequences and the same was created with a view to camouflage the factum of subletting – Nothing was produced on record to show that the firm was maintaining any regular books of account and was being regularly assessed to the income tax and rebut the claim of the landlady that it was merely a sham transaction – Respondent-landlady successfully managed to rebut the onus upon the petitioners which they failed to dispel by bringing on record any evidence worth the name.

(Para 21-23)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 – Sub-letting -- Additional evidence -- Provisions are very explicit regarding the evidence which has to be led at the appellate stage -- It is only in given situations where such additional evidence is to be brought on record which are :-

(i)      where the Trial Court refuses to admit the evidence which ought to be admitted,

(ii)     documents which were not within the knowledge or could not, after exercise of due diligence, be produced by the party and

(iii)    if the Appellate Authority required any document to be produced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.

Additional evidence sought to be produced was well within the knowledge of the appellant and could have been produced before the Rent Controller -- In the absence of any valid reasons for bringing the application within the parameters of the provisions under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the petitioners cannot claim, as a matter of right, that they should be permitted to lead evidence and bring on record that the partnership was a functional partnership and not a sham one.

(Para 25)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Ejectment petition – Compromise of – Execution of -- Ejectment application was withdrawn only on account of the fact that an undertaking was given that compromise had been arrived at interse the parties and the shop in question will be vacated after a period of three years on payment of rent -- Once the undertaking had not complied with by the tenants, the Executing Court was bound to get delivered the possession of the shop in question in view of the compromise.

(Para 9)