A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Arrears of rent – Provisional assessment of – Prima facie material -- At the initial stage, only the relevant material in the shape of affidavits and documents are to be placed on record. Rakesh Wadhawan’s case 2002 (5) SCC 440 & Rajan @ Raj Kumar’s case 2010 (2) PLR 201 relied.

(Para 15-17)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Arrears of rent – Provisional assessment of – Deposit in shape of FDR -- Rent Controller had taken into account the admission made as such by the tenants to the extent they were liable to pay Rs.7.5 lacs per month from 01.03.2015 – As per the terms of the registered lease deed, if the authenticity is to be gone into, they are liable also to adjust the amount against the amount already spent against the alleged expenditure of Rs.9 crores and, therefore, leaving the landlord without any payment till the expiry of the lease deed itself till 2024 -- Interest of the parties can be protected by directing that the amount be kept in Fixed Deposit by the Rent Controller to be paid at the time of final decision.

(Para 19)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Bonafide need – Amendment in -- Eviction petition for bonafide need of daughter-in-law – Amendment sought to show bonafide need of daughter in changed circumstances -- Amendment which had been allowed would not prejudice the tenant in any manner -- There has to be a liberal view qua the plea of amendment of pleadings specially for the person who had initiated the litigation and subsequent events can be brought on record – Held, amendment has been validly allowed.

(Para 5-7)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Evidence beyond pleadings -- Material alteration with consent of the earlier landlord – Non-pleading of – Effect of -- Courts are not to go beyond the pleadings and evidence beyond the same cannot be looked into -- Said proposition of law is based on the ground that neither of the parties can take the other by surprise and other side should be given opportunity to rebut the case and explain, if such a plea is taken -- On the pleadings, accordingly, evidence has to be produced to substantiate the submissions and in the absence of the same, the Court cannot examine the said evidence.

(Para 11)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Material alteration with consent of the earlier landlord – Evidence beyond pleadings -- Once the specific stand of the tenant was not that of the fact that the consent had been given, he could not rely upon the said agreement.

(Para 2,8-13)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- NRI landlord – Ownership for 5 years – Leave to contest -- Oral Family settlement of 2008 was reduced into writing only in the year 2013 – Thus, the ownership of the respondent-landlady had itself not crystallized for a requisite period of five years, which was a necessary requirement under the Act – Filing of eviction petition on 1.6.2013 -- Leave to contest granted.

(Para 5, 6)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- NRI landlord -- Leave to contest -- Apart from the shop in question, which is in possession of the tenant there were three more shops which were also divided inter se the family members as per the family settlement which was reduced into writing -- Resultantly, the Rent Controller would have necessarily to go into the various factors as the share of the landlady and as to whether she was a co-owner in all the properties or not on succession, and thus triable issues were arising.

(Para 7)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 15(2) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Stay of eviction order -- Mesne profit – Determination of – Amount of mesne profits should not be excessive, fanciful or a punitive amount -- Fixation of mesne profits is to be on the basis of some registered documents and it cannot be fanciful, at the discretion of the Court -- In the absence of any such registered lease deed being produced by the landlord, the order itself is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

(Para 2, 3)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 13 – Arrears of rent -- Provisional rent assessed at Rs. 9,000/- p.m. -- No written rent deed between the parties – Tenant has placed on record the list of documents which were filed before the Appellate Authority, i.e., photocopies of the house tax for the year 2016-17, income tax return for the year 2014-15 – In the return for the assessment year 2014-15 rent paid for the said shop at Rs.36,000/-, for the year ending 31.03.2014 -- Annual property tax was Rs.594/- for the 300 sq.ft. area – Held, sufficient material, as such, inter se the parties, to record a finding as to what was the rent agreed between the parties had been placed before the Appellate Authority -- Affidavits of the tenants of the adjoining shops prima facie would not be the safe barometer to assess the provisional rent -- Matter is liable to be remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision in the appeal on the said aspect.

(Para 7,8)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Arrears of rent – Challenge to -- Non-payment of -- Contention of landlady that the rent was to be paid within a time-bound frame but it was not paid on 22.12.2016 when the matter was fixed before the Rent Controller, for further proceedings – Held, High Court has been approached expeditiously on 12.12.2016 and the case had been listed for the first time on 20.12.2016 -- The matter had, thereafter, been adjourned to place additional documents on record – Ground of non-payment of rent is held to be without basis.

 (Para 8)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6, Rule 17 -- Bonafide need – Amendment in pleadings -- Amendment which has been sought only gives the details as to how the premises in question have to be utilized by the petitioners and the family members -- Specific instances have been given as to how the area is to be utilized which is sought to be vacated on the ground of bona fide requirement – If there is no statutory bar as such and an independent case can be filed, then the amendment should be allowed -- Amendment can be allowed if no serious prejudice is caused to the opposite party and no accrued right is taken away -- Amendment of pleadings at the instance of the first party litigating is always to be liberally construed -- No prejudice as such would be caused to the tenant specially keeping in mind the fact that it would be always open to the petitioners-landlords to file a fresh petition with better particulars on the same cause of action -- Application for amendment is allowed.

(Para 6-9)

A. Rent Law -- Bonafide need of married daughter – Eviction of tenant -- Any female, if she is having a legal right of residence in the building, is also included in the definition of “family” in relation to landlord regardless of the fact whether she is married or not -- In order to claim the benefit of expression "family", a female must have a "legal right of residence" in the building -- Such female would then be entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from such building for her need.

(Para 25-27)

B. Rent Law -- Bonafide need of married daughter – Inheritance by daughter/ co-owner – Eviction of tenant -- Married daughter received her share and became co-owner of the building along with other co-sharers -- Being a co-owner, she got a legal right of residence in the building.

(Para 30)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 13-A(1)(1A) – Specified landlord – Residential building – Non-residential building – Eviction from -- Specified landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a residential and non-residential building in a summary manner in terms of Section 13-A (1) (1A) of the 1973 Act. Vinod Kumar Jain’s case 2012 (1) RCR (Rent) 36 relied.

(Para 5)

A. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(6), 9, 14-A -- Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(5) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 107, 116, 117 -- Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 49 – Tenant of agricultural land -- Fixed period tenancy of agricultural land from 29.5.1996 to 28.5.2005 – Non-registration of -- Expiry of – Effect of – Eviction of -- Whether after the expiry of the fixed term tenancy in respect of an agricultural lease under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 the tenancy gets automatically terminated and the person occupying the leased premises ceases to be a tenant? – Section 107 of the T P Act, 1882 which has been made applicable to the State of Punjab (including Haryana) by the notification require annual leases of immovable property to be made by a registered instrument -- Section 117 has not been made applicable to the State of Punjab, therefore, the provisions of Section 107 of the T P Act would apply with full force and vigor to all leases of immovable property including agricultural leases in the State of Punjab (including Haryana) -- Tenant remained in possession of the land for the fixed term envisaged in the lease agreement and even thereafter -- As the lease in question was not a registered instrument, the lease deed would not be admissible in evidence and, therefore, cannot be looked into for the purpose of determining the duration of the lease – As tenant remained in possession beyond the legally presumptive period of the lease (one year) with the implied consent of the landlord, therefore, acquired the status of a tenant holding over or a tenant at will, which would confer on him protection under the 1953 Act requiring the landlord to establish proof of any of the conditions specified in Section 9 of the 1953 Act before being entitled to a decree of eviction.

(Para 1, 15-18)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 107, 116, 117 -- Section 54, 107, 123 – Applicability of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to State of Punjab/Haryana -- As evident from opening provision thereof, makes it clear that it is not to be applicable to the State of Punjab (including the present State of Haryana which was included in the erstwhile State of Punjab) -- However, by a Gazette Notification dated 26th March, 1955 (No.1605-R(CH)-55/589) published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette dated 1st April, 1955 (Part I, page 372) the provisions of Sections 54, 107 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were extended to the entire State of Punjab with effect from 1st April, 1955.

(Para 13, 14)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Assessment of provisional rent – Non-payment of – Extension of time -- Rent Controller fixed the date for tendering of the provisional rent – On the said date the rent so assessed was not tendered, although an explanation has been given that it was not his fault rather all efforts were made by him to reach the Court well in time so that he could tender the assessed rent -- Assuming that to be correct, there is no explanation as to why the provisionally assessed rent was not tendered on the very next working day of the Court and he moved application after 17 days – Impugned order rejecting the application would not call for interference.

 (Para 4-7)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Letting to one family member -- Business by immediate family members – Effect of – Sub-letting – Onus of -- It is not un-known for different members of a family to have different firms for purposes of tax and in such a case the onus is heavier on the landlord to not only prove the parting of possession but also that it was for rent -- Such onus was not discharged by landlord – Eviction on the ground of sub-letting set aside.

(Para 8-10)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(dd), 13-B – NRI Landlord – Foreigner citizen – Contention that being a foreign citizen the respondent would not be covered by the definition of Non-Resident Indian (NRI) as defined under Section 2 (dd) of the Act of 1949 rejected. Krishan Kumar’s case in CR No.3509-2014, decided on 09.05.2016 relied.

 (Para 2)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI Landlord – Non-disclosure of other shops – Effect of -- Requirement of mandatory disclosure has been incorporated only in Section 13(3) which deals with the personal requirement of a resident Indian -- This requirement is not there while seeking eviction under any other ground or under Section 13 (B) which is a special right conferred upon NRIs.

(Para 2)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI landlord -- Bonafide need -- Two other shops – Effect of -- Contention that once the landlord was forced to admit in his cross-examination that he had two more shops in his possession it was a case where the Court should have held that the tenant had displaced the presumption of bonafide requirement -- Mere fact that a landlord has any other premises in his occupation would not be enough where the landlord has given an explanation that one of the rooms is being used as a garage and the other as a store.

(Para 2, 3)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(dd), 13-B -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 24(3) – NRI Landlord – Person of Indian Origin – Overseas citizen of India -- Foreign citizen -- Foreign citizen or a person who was born outside India is covered under the definition of NRI.

(Para 9-11)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(dd) – NRI Landlord -- Once the Rent Controller held that the landlady fulfilled all the conditions it has to be understood that the finding that she was an NRI is there.

(Para 16)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI landlord – Co-owner – Tenancy created by other co-owner – Effect of -- A co-owner NRI can seek eviction of the tenant in a building though the tenant was not inducted by such NRI and that it is not necessary that all other co-owners should be NRI. Smt. Bachan Kaur’s case 2011(3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB) relied.

(Para 45)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI landlord -- Bonafide need -- In our country it is highly unlikely to expect a man to stay in the house of his father-in-law and further to hold that such a man would not have a bonafide requirement to stay in his own house -- As regards landlord had in his possession two rooms and a bath room etc. the same would also not help the tenants.

(Para 65)

E. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(dd), 13-B – NRI landlord -- Ownership for 5 years – Proof of -- Once the transfer certificate issued by the Chandigarh Administration was placed on the record, it was not necessary for the landlord to have put into evidence the conveyance deed and the transfer certificate would be proof of the fact that the landlord was the owner from the date thereof.

(Para 66)

F. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Sections 3 (1) (a), 24(3), 38, 50, 75 – NRI landlord – Eviction petition – After 30.10.2013, whether 1949 Act or 1995 Act will prevail – Harmonious construction -- Only harmonious construction which would give effect to these disparate provisions would be to hold that as regards NRI-landlords, those cases which were filed prior to 30.11.2013 would be taken up under the Act of 1949 and those which were filed after that date would have to be filed and proceeded under the 1995 Act, notwithstanding the date of the tenancy.

(Para 78-81)

G. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Sections 3 (1) (a), 24(3), 38, 50, 75 – NRI landlord – Eviction petition -- Permanently shifting to India – Ownership for 5 years -- Right of NRI -- Three material changes in the substantive law as regards NRI between the Act of 1949 and the 1995 Act are:

(i)    Under the Act of 1949 the NRI need not return to India for permanent residence while under the 1995 Act he has to return to India permanently.

(ii)   Secondly under the Act of 1949 there was a stipulation that the NRI should have owned the building for five years while there was no such requirement under the 1995 Act.

(iii)  Thirdly under the Act of 1949 a further condition was laid down to the effect that the right of summary eviction would be available only once in a life time and this limitation is imposed upon Landlords mentioned in Section 24(1) of the 1995 Act but is not applicable to NRIs.

(Para 82)

H. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Sections 3 (1) (a), 24(3), 38, 50, 75 – Leave to defend – Challenge to -- Review – Appeal – Revision – Remedy of -- Under the Act of 1949 the remedy of appeal was taken away and under Section 18(A) only a revision lay before High Court -- Under the 1995 Act Section 38(7) (e) provides a remedy to a tenant to file an application for review against an order declining leave to defend and Section 50 permits an appeal against any final order.

(Para 82)

I. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Sections 3 (1) (a), 24(3), 38, 50, 75 – NRI landlord – Eviction petition after enforcement of 1995 Act – Effect upon -- Landlord cannot be blamed for not having understood the true import and the interplay between the two Acts – Held, NRIs-Landlords who filed petitions after the coming into force of the 1995 Act (30.11.2013) and made the averments required under the said Act would be entitled to file formal applications for amendment of number of the Section and the title of the Act mentioned therein -- However, these tenants would be entitled to the statutory benefits conferred by the 1995 Act in so much as they would have the right to file an application for review against the order declining leave to defend as well as the right to file an appeal against an order of eviction -- Such landlords who have not made the necessary averments required by Section 24 of the 1995 Act would however have to be non-suited though they would have the right to file fresh petitions conforming to the requirements of the 1995 Act.

(Para 78, 84)

J. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Sections 3 (1) (a), 24(3), 38, 50, 75 – NRI landlord – Leave to defend -- Once it is held that the 1995 Act is applicable, it would be incumbent upon the Rent Controller to first pass an order on the application for leave to defend and after allowing the aggrieved party time to file a review application, then pass a separate final order – Full Bench judgment in Anwar Ali’s  case 2012(1) L.A.R. 306 had laid down that in the case of NRIs the order of eviction is a consequential order to an order declining leave to defend would not be applicable to proceedings under the 1995 Act for the reason that now a provision has been made for filing a review against the order declining an application for leave to defend.

(Para 85)

K. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Sections 3 (1) (a), 24(3), 38, 50, 75 – NRI Landlord – Eviction petition after coming into force the 1995 Act -- Essential averment with regard to permanent residence has been made -- Landlord would be required to file a formal application for amendment within one month of the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if it is so done the application for amendment shall be allowed -- Rent Controller will then proceed to re-decide the application for leave to defend under the 1995 Act.

(Para 95)

L. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Sections 3 (1) (a), 24(3), 38, 50, 75 – NRI landlord – Eviction petition after coming into force the 1995 Act -- Eviction petition under 1949 Act – Maintainability of -- There no averment regarding permanent return of the landlord in the eviction petition – Rent petition is not maintainable -- Landlord would be at liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action under the 1995 Act.

(Para 101)

M. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Sections 3 (1) (a), 24(3), 38, 50, 75 – Applicability to Chandigarh -- NRI landlord – Eviction petition under 1949 Act – Maintainability of -- Contention that petition was filed in the year 2015 and therefore it should have been filed under the 1995 Act – Held, the 1995 Act has not been extended to Chandigarh and, therefore, the plea has to be rejected.

(Para 109)

N. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Sections 3 (1) (a), 24(3), 38, 50, 75 – NRI Landlord -- Bonafide need -- The person who has actually one bedroom set can definitely have bonafide need and requirement for more accommodation.

(Para 123)

O. Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Sections 3 (1) (a), 24(3), 38, 50, 75 – NRI Landlord – Ownership for 5 years – There is no requirement under the 1995 Act that the landlord should have been owner for 5 years.

(Para 133)

Rent law case -- Provisional rent – Extension of time to deposit – Permissibility of – Application for extension of time declined, eviction order passed – Tenant’s appeal dismissed in view of law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan’s case 2002(2) Punjab Law Reporter 370 (SC) and M/s S.Nihal Singh Motors and other’s case 2005(1) Local Acts Reporter 70(P&H) – No contrary law produced, consequently revision petition dismissed.

(Para 3-5)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 13, 35 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 106 – Rent Control Legislation -- Provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot be used to override the provisions of the Rent Control Act – A non obstante clause (Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act) cannot be used to bulldoze the statutory rights vested on the tenants under the Rent Control Act -- Neither the landlord nor the banks can be permitted to exploit the fact of non registration of the tenancy deed against the tenant -- Once tenancy is created, a tenant can be evicted only after following the due process of law, as prescribed under the provisions of the Rent Control Act -- A tenant cannot be arbitrarily evicted by using the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as that would amount to stultifying the statutory rights of protection given to the tenant.

(Para 24-30)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 10 – Disconnection of supply of water – Restoration as interim relief -- If it is held that water connection cannot be given by way of interim relief it would mean that the tenant would die of thirst because the main case could not be decided and the landlord would be able to obliquely achieve his purpose of getting his premises vacated by cutting off the water supply – Order granting the Interim relief affirmed.

(Para 1, 3, 7)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 4(5) -- Fair rent -- Words “between the parties to the proceedings” in sub-section (5) of Section 4 do not relate only to a compromise arrived at between the parties to the proceedings during the course of or in the proceedings -- These words include a compromise between the parties to the proceedings even otherwise including before the proceedings are instituted even in the absence of any proceedings -- It would have been clarified that the compromise ought to be one between the landlord and the tenant “in the proceedings” or “in the course of proceedings”.

 (Para 21)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 4(5) -- Fair rent – Fixation of – Compromise – Effect of -- Compromise referred to section 4(5) of the Haryana Act is only one of the factors/parameters which the Controller may take into consideration while fixing the fair rent -- If the parties rely upon a compromise which the Controller considers inappropriate or irrelevant for any reason including in relation to the period when it was arrived at, he is entitled to disregard the same.

(Para 23)

C. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 4(5) – Basic rent – Fair rent -- Fixation of –Determination of -- Sub-section (5) refers to the Controller’s discretion to fix the fair rent -- It does not refer to the Controller fixing the basic rent referred to in sub section (2) of the Haryana Act -- Once the Controller decides to fix the fair rent on the basis of a compromise it is not necessary for him to fix the basic rent under sub section (2) of Section 4 of the Haryana Act.

(Para 24)

D. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 4(2) -- Basic rent – Fair rent – Fixation of –Determination of -- Determination of the basic rent was a sine-qua-none to the determination of the fair rent as sub section (2) of Section 4 mandates that in fixing the fair rent “the Controller shall first determine the basic rent” -- Fixing the basic rent is, therefore, mandatory to fixing the fair rent.

(Para 25)

E. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 4(2) -- Fair rent – Determination on merit – Effect of -- A change in tenancy would not affect the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller under Section 4 of the Act, 1973 after determining the basic rent under section 4(2)(a) and without reference to sub section (5) of section 4 -- In other words, where the fair rent is arrived at after determining the basic rent under section 4 (2) (a) of the Act, 1973 and without reference to a compromise, it would bind the subsequent landlords and tenant -- It would be a judgment in rem -- The judgments in Nand Kishore’s case 1970 RCR (Rent) 974, Lekh Ram’s case 1962 P.L.R. 197 and Ladha Ram’s case 1955 PLR 188 to this effect are, therefore, affirmed.

(Para 28)

F. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 4(2) -- Fair rent – Determination on compromise – Effect of -- Where the fair rent is arrived at on the basis of or even upon taking into consideration a compromise between the parties, the same is binding only between such parties and their heirs and does not affect any other parties -- Such a judgment is one in personam and not one in rem -- Ratio of the judgments in Nand Kishore’s case 1970 RCR (Rent) 974, Lekh Ram’s case 1962 P.L.R. 197 and Ladha Ram’s case 1955 PLR 188 does not apply to cases under section 4(5) of the Act, 1973 -- It is clarified that the ratio of these judgments would not apply even where one of the factors while determining the fair rent is a compromise arrived at between the parties one or more of whom are not parties to the case in question, under consideration.

(Para 28)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13-A – Specified landlord – Leave to contest – Tenant was declined leave to contest -- Once a tenant is declined leave to contest, the order of eviction has to be followed forthwith and is consequential -- Just because, post passing of the order and after it had attained finality, respondent-landlord got another premises vacated, would not entitle the petitioner to move a second application seeking leave to contest and reopen the matter.

(Para 4)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 2(c), 2(h), Section 13 – Landlord – Tenant -- Sub-letting by tenant – Whether tenant is termed as landlord for sub-tenant – Eviction petition by tenant – Maintainability of -- A tenant who sublets any building or rented land without the written consent of the landlord is not a landlord within the meaning of that term in Section 2(c) -- Words in Section 2(c) “in the manner hereinafter provided” refer to a tenant, who sublets a building or rented land with the written consent of the landlord -- Where a tenant sublets any building or rented land without the written consent of the landlord, the person to whom he sublets the building or rented land does not fall within the meaning of the term “tenant” in Section 2(h) -- Accordingly, where a tenant, who sublets any building or rented land without the written consent of the landlord, cannot maintain an action for eviction under Section 13.

(Para 10)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c), 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Denial of title of landlord at inception of tenancy – Amendment in written statement at appellate stage – Permissibility of -- Tenant contends that the lease deed executed by the landlords  with the petitioner is non-est in the eyes of law – This plea was not raised in the written statement -- An application was filed before the Appellate Authority for amendment of the written statement for incorporating new facts with regard to the original allottee having expired on 29.09.1996 -- Held, these pleas could have been taken at the very outset and cannot be permitted at the appellate stage.

(Para 3, 6 8)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c)(i) -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 116 -- Landlord-tenant relationship – Principle of Estoppel -- Respondents inducted the petitioner as a tenant, therefore, the petitioner cannot raise an objection that the respondents are not the landlords – In the light of provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlords title however defective it may be -- A tenant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.

(Para 9)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c), 2(hh) – Landlord – Specified landlord – Letting out of property – Requirement of -- There is no absolute requirement of law that a person has to let out a property or receive rent in order to file the eviction application u/s 13 or 13-A of the Act.

(Para 9)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c) – Landlord -- Any person, who derives a title under a landlord is permitted to be the landlord.

(Para 9)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(hh), Section 13-A -- Specified landlord – Owner -- Any person who is entitled to receive rent on his own account i.e. he is owner of the demised premises, comes under the definition of specified landlord subject to fulfilling the other ingredients laid down under Section 13-A of the Act.

(Para 9)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Purchaser of property – Owner of property -- Landlord -- Person who has once bought the property or is the legal owner of the property, then he is the natural landlord and for all intents and purposes can get the property vacated on any of the grounds that accrue in his favour under the Act.

(Para 9)

E. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-A -- Specified landlord – Ownership for one year – Requirement of -- Had the intention of the legislature been that the landlord filing an petition u/s 13 A of the Act was to be a owner for atleast a year, then the same would have been specifically mentioned in the Act itself -- Since there are no such words used by the legislature u/s 13-A of the Act, the Court cannot take upon itself the work of legislature and traverse beyond its own scope of judicial review and add words which the legislature never intended to.

(Para 10)

F. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-A – Specified landlord -- Sale deed between husband and wife – Challenge to -- Sale deed by wife in favour of husband/Specified landlord – Tenant saying it to be a mala fide document – Held, document is registered and valid rights have been transferred as permitted under law -- An internal arrangement between husband and wife cannot be looked into by the court while exercising its jurisdiction under the Rent Act.

(Para 11)

G. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 13-A – Bonafide need -- Contention that first and second floor of demised premises are vacant and therefore sufficient for the landlord – Held, tenant is no one to dictate terms to the landlord and the landlord is best judge of his own requirement -- If after retirement the landlord wants to live comfortably in a good house of his own on the ground floor, then a tenant cannot curtail his necessity by taking the plea that he can live in alternative accommodation which is on some other floor.

(Para 11)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 7, 13 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 55 -- Recovery of excess rent paid – Limitation – Appellate Authority held that the tenant is not entitled to the refund of excess rent paid because prayer for refund was not made within six months of the payment -- Liberty was given to the tenant to claim the said amount in accordance with other remedies available to him – Tenant filed civil suit for recovery of excess rent paid – Held, Section 7 of the Rent Act, deals with the recovery of rent without prejudice to any other method of recovery -- Therefore, Section 7 of the Act, authorizes a Rent Controller to pass an order of recovery of the excess amount paid to the landlord -- Other remedy i.e. the remedy of the Civil Suit, has been saved by Section 7 of the Act itself – Right to sue will arise to the plaintiff only when the Rent Controller, held that the plaintiff has paid excess of the rent and thus, he is entitled to refund -- Such right, firstly would arise on that day and secondly, when such finding was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority.

(Para 5,6)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) , Section 13 – Provisional assessment of rent – Non-payment of -- Provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller directing the tenant to pay rent – Tenant failed to tender the rent on the date fixed and thus, eviction order was passed – No fault can be found in the impugned order of eviction.

(Para 3,4)

Rent Laws – Arrears of rent – Provisional Assessment of rent – Challenge to -- By impugned order provisional rent assessed, the next date for tendering the same was fixed as 8.4.2013 -- Petitioner had put in appearance in court on that date, but did not tender the rent, the case was adjourned to 10.4.2013 in the presence of counsels for both the parties – On dated 10.4.2013 exparte eviction order was passed, which was concealed by the petitioner when notice of motion and stay order was passed by High Court on 29.4.2013 – Though the petitioner tried to plead ignorance about the said order, however, the same cannot be accepted considering the fact that date of hearing was well within the knowledge of the petitioner – No reason to interfere with the impugned order.

(Para 6)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Subletting – Under Section 13(2) (ii) (a) of the Act, a landlord is entitled to seek possession from the tenant where the tenant has transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof etc. without written consent of the landlord -- In order to establish subletting, the landlord has to prove that:-

“(i)  Sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of the whole or part of the tenanted premises.

(ii)   That the tenant has parted with the legal possession of  the premises.

(iii)  Such parting with possession is for some consideration.

(iv)  It has been done without the written consent of the landlord.”

(Para 7)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Subletting – Onus of proof – Presumption of consideration -- In order to establish subletting by the landlord, the initial onus is upon the landlord to establish that the premises were let out to a tenant who has delivered exclusive possession to the tenant without his written consent -- Once that is proved, it would be presumed that the subletting is for consideration -- However, the tenant would be entitled to rebut the material produced by the landlord.

(Para 8)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977), Section 18 – Lease by HUDA – Non-payment of rent – Eviction of -- Applicability of Rent Act -- Lease of 11 months by HUDA -- On Lessee’s failure to clear the arrears of rent HUDA terminated lease after serving one month's notice – Lessee became an unauthorised occupant -- Section 18 of the 1977 Act reveals that power to evict an unauthorised occupant under this section has an over-riding effect over any other law -- Contention of the petitioner that the petitioner could be evicted only under the provisions of the Rent Act and not u/s 18 of the 1977 Act, is absolutely misconceived and is, therefore, rejected.

(Para 11,12)

B. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977), Section 18 – Tenancy dispute -- Arbitration clause – Writ petition – Maintainability of -- According to Clause 15 of the lease deed, any dispute pertaining to the tenancy thereby created is referable to arbitration -- That being so, the writ petition is not maintainable as an efficacious remedy by way of arbitration was available to the petitioner.

(Para 14)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- NRI landlord -- Leave to defend – Condonation of delay -- Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing an application for grant of leave to defend.

(Para 4)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order XV Rule 5 – Arrears of rent due – Defence struck off – Right of -- Interpretation of Section 13(2)(i) of the Rent Act mean that rent payable by the tenant beyond three years is not the rent due under the statute – As per Order XV Rule 5 CPC, defence of the tenant can be struck off if “the entire amount admitted by him to be due”, is not deposited on the relevant date of hearing – Harmonious construction of the two provisions i.e. Section 13(2)(i) of the Rent Act and Order XV Rule 5 CPC, will be that the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC can be made applicable in rent proceedings only if the rent, which is legally due, is not paid.

(Para 8-10)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(3)(i) -- Arrears of rent – First date of hearing -- Doctrine of merger – Rent Controller assessed the arrears of rent – Assessment order was challenged upto Hon’ble Supreme Court – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the tenant as withdrawn and three months time was granted to the tenant to deposit the amount -- Tenant deposited the amount before the Rent Controller within the time frame ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court – Thus, the time that was given by the learned Rent Controller, stood extended by the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court – Dismissal order of ejectment petition, upheld.

Before referring to the arguments of both the parties, it would be appropriate to mention here that the sole question that arises for determination in the present petition is that whether the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh was justified in dismissing the ejectment application filed by the petitioners(landlords) on the ground that respondent(tenant) had paid the amount of arrears of rent as assessed by the learned Rent Controller within a time frame prescribed by it or not.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered view that the present revision is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that the learned Rent Controller had vide its order dated 28.09.2011 allowed the petition of the petitioners(landlords) on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent and it was observed in the said order that amount of Rs.1,22,16,931/- has to be paid within a period of two months, else the respondent(tenant) will be liable to be evicted. It is further not in dispute that only the respondent (tenant) had filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh and during the pendency of the said appeal, an application was also moved by the respondent(tenant) for staying the operation of the impugned order of the learned Rent controller, Chandigarh. In the said appeal, the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh had passed a conditional order to the effect that the impugned order shall remain stayed subject to the condition that the respondent(tenant) shall deposit 30% of the arrears of rent as assessed by the learned Rent Controller within one month from today. The said order was passed on 03.11.2011.

Against the order dated 03.11.2011 a Civil Revision petition no.7953 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner(landlord) and in the said petition, on 14.02.2012 this Court had passed the following order:-

“Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the tenant is directed to deposit the amount determined by the Rent Controller minus the amount already deposited. The needful shall be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

It is an admitted case between both the parties, that the copy of the order passed by this Court on 14.02.2012 was delivered on 27.02.2012 and on 20.03.2012, Special Leave to Appeal no.9375 of 2012, filed by the respondent (tenant) before Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed as withdrawn. However, in the said order it was specifically observed that the petition is dismissed as withdrawn and three months time is granted to the respondent(tenant) to deposit the arrears of rent in terms of the order passed by this Court on 14.02.2012.

Petitioners (landlords) has not been able to dispute the fact that the amount that was to be deposited by the respondent(tenant) was tendered before the Rent Controller within the time frame ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In view of the above, this Court is unable to agree with the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners(landlords) that the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh has misread the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has wrongly applied the doctrine of merger to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. It is crystal clear from the orders as referred above, that Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically granted three months time in terms of the order passed by this Court and within the said time frame, the amount was deposited by the tenant. Thus, the time that was given by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh stood extended by the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

 (Para 8, 11-15)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(dd), 2(i), 13-B – NRI Landlord/Co-Owner – Letting out/ Tenancy, not necessary to be by N.R.I. -- Letting out is not a sine-qua-non to maintain eviction petition -- Owner has a right to seek eviction after the period of five years from the date of becoming owner -- Once a person has become owner of the property, the tenancy rights being attached to the building stand transferred to him in the same manner as all other rights to a building, which has been purchased by him or her -- A co-owner NRI can seek eviction of the tenant in a building though the tenant was not inducted by such NRI and that it is not necessary that all other co-owners should be Non Resident Indians.

In the Punjab Act, as originally enacted, the word owner is not used in the entire Act. Section 13-B of the Punjab Act confers a right of eviction to an owner for the first time. Therefore, an ordinary meaning of such expression has to be applied while interpreting the provisions of the Punjab Act. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 13-B of the Punjab Act, regulates the right of eviction of such owner i.e. after a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner of such a building. The proviso is an exception to the substantive provision when it restricts right of such owner to seek eviction after five years and is explanatory, when it provides that an owner shall be entitled to seek eviction after five years of becoming owner. The right of eviction under the Punjab Act, has been given to an owner in respect of residential, scheduled or non residential building let out by him or her, required for his or her use or for the use of anyone ordinarily living with or dependent upon him or her. The proviso explains that an owner is entitled to seek ejectment after five years of acquiring title. It is well settled that all words in the statute have to be given meaning. The argument that an NRI is entitled to seek eviction after five years of becoming owner only if the tenant has been inducted by him does not serve the purport of the Act. If such meaning is assigned, the right of eviction given to NRI becomes otiose. Therefore, restricting the right of eviction to an owner who has let out the building alone cannot be reconciled with the proviso. The harmonious construction of proviso and the substantive provision is possible by accepting the argument that the tenant need not be necessarily inducted by the petitioner- owner more so when a tenancy is interest in the immoveable property transferred with the property itself.

The ownership of the building is the necessary condition for maintaining the eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Punjab Act. The letting out by the petitioner is not a sine-qua-non to maintain eviction petition in terms of the Punjab Act. One can acquire ownership right by virtue of a purchase or by inheritance. Though in our opinion, the title derived by inheritance is legal consequence and should exclude limit of five years, but since the said question has not been debated before us, we so no more in the present case. We leave such question to be decided in an appropriate case later. Therefore, an owner has a right to seek eviction after the period of five years from the date of becoming owner of such building, irrespective of the fact that the building has been let out by him or her. Once a person has become owner of the property, the tenancy rights being attached to the building stand transferred to him in the same manner as all other rights to a building, which has been purchased by him or her. The object of granting summary right of eviction to a Non Resident Indian is to provide mechanism for possession of their own residential building, as an exception to rigid legal provisions of the existing provisions of the law. Such right is manifested when right of eviction is conferred on an owner. If the argument of the learned counsel for the tenants is to be accepted that the intention was to restrict the right of eviction to only those NRI’s who have let out the premises, such interpretation would negative the very purpose of the insertion of the mechanism of summary eviction contemplated under Section 13-B of the Act. The expression let out by him in the context of Section 13-B of the Punjab Act, does not require strict interpretation as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Nathi Devi’s case (supra), as such interpretation is neither warranted nor advances the purpose of granting summary right of eviction under Section 13-B of the Punjab Act. Therefore, the Judgment in Nathi Devi’s case (supra) cannot be applied to the cases arising out of the Punjab Act.

In view of the rights of the co-owner as explained by the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Co., Dhannalal’s cases (supra) and Mahavir Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain 2006(2) SCC 724, a co-owner NRI can seek eviction of the tenant in a building though the tenant was not inducted by such NRI and that it is not necessary that all other co-owners should be Non Resident Indians.

(Para 17,18, 20)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 1, 13-B – NRI Landlord/Owner – Summary right of eviction – Object of -- Object of granting summary right of eviction to a Non Resident Indian is to provide mechanism for possession of their own residential building, as an exception to rigid legal provisions of the existing provisions of the law -- Such right is manifested when right of eviction is conferred on an owner.

The object of granting summary right of eviction to a Non Resident Indian is to provide mechanism for possession of their own residential building, as an exception to rigid legal provisions of the existing provisions of the law. Such right is manifested when right of eviction is conferred on an owner.

 (Para 18)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(i), 13 – Co-owner -- Tenancy rights are indivisible – A co-owner is competent to induct tenant in part of whole of the building -- Tenant cannot be evicted from part of the tenant premises -- An act of the co-owner of inducting a tenant binds all other co-owners -- After a tenant has been inducted, he is a tenant under all the co-owners -- A co-owner who has not inducted a tenant can seek eviction of such tenant -- Right and liabilities of the co-owner creates a legal fiction of tenancy against all co-owner.

Examining the proposition from another angle, it may be noticed that the tenancy rights are indivisible and a co-owner is competent to induct tenant in part of whole of the building. The tenant cannot be evicted from part of the tenant premises. An act of the co-owner of inducting a tenant binds all other co-owners. After a tenant has been inducted, he is a tenant under all the co-owners. Therefore, a co-owner who has not inducted a tenant can seek eviction of such tenant. The right and liabilities of the co-owner creates a legal fiction of tenancy against all co-owner.

(Para 19)

A. Rules & Orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Rule 4 Chapter 1 Part K Volume 1 – Unanticipated holidays – Presiding officer on leave – Duties of the parties -- In case of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question shall be deemed to be automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the duty of the parties or their counsel (but not of witnesses) to attend the Court on that day.

……

a)      whether in a case of an unanticipated holiday, the Presiding Officer of a Court is obliged to fix a fresh date for proper orders on the next working day in terms of Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court or can pass an effective order on the next working day?

……..

Before referring to the facts of this case, it would be relevant to refer to Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders, which is as under: -

Rule 4 Chapter 1 Part K Volume 1

“4. Adjournment caused by absence of the Judge of unexpected holiday. On the occurrence of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question deemed to have been automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the duty of the parties or their counsel (but not of witnesses) to attend Court on that day.

Whenever possible the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may be, fix fresh dates in cases fixed for the date which is declared a holiday or for which he has obtained leave, and issue notices to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, of the fresh dates fixed.

In the case of a Small Cause Court where there are Additional Judges, the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Provincial Small Cause Act (IX) of 1887) should be followed.”

The aforesaid Rule was interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand (supra) in which the facts of the case were that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery, in which respondent No.2 was served personally and he put in appearance on behalf of himself and respondent No.4. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 were served through publication, but they did not appear on 04.07.1966. On that date, the learned Subordinate Judge did not hold the Court and the case was set down for hearing for the next day. On 05.07.1966, respondent Nos.3 & 5 again did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte. After recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit against the respondents which was set aside in appeal. It was argued on behalf of the appellants in that case that in terms of Rule 4 of Chapter I-K of Volume I of the High Court Rules and Orders, in the event of absence of the Presiding Officer, all the cases fixed for the day in question shall be deemed to have been adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it was the duty of the parties to attend the Court on that date. The Division Bench in this regard observed that: -

“4. No doubt the parties are enjoined by the first part of the rule to attend the Court on the next working day but a corresponding duty is also cast by the latter part of the rule on the Presiding Officer to fix a fresh date in the suit and inform the parties, the counsel and witnesses of the same. The parties are required to attend on the next working day, it appears to enable the Court to fix a date in their presence and to avoid thereby the necessity of the communication of the date fixed. That is why the rule does not authorize the Court to take further proceedings in the suit and only envisages the fixation of the next date. If the parties of their counsel are present then the next date of hearing would be made known to them, but if they are not present, they have to be informed of the same.

5. Even if it may be accepted that the said rule is also capable of the interpretation as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants it has to be avoided for it is now well settled that the rules of procedure are hand maid to the administration of justice meant to advance its cause and not to defeat the same. Moreover, the view of this Court, consistently has been that in the event of a Presiding Officer of a Court being absent on the date fixed for the hearing of a case, no order to the prejudice of the absentee parties on the following day would be passed and the Court should fix another date and issue fresh notice to the absentee party and to the witnesses.”

The aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand (supra) would not be applicable in the present case in view of the fact that it has dealt with the latter part of the Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume I of the Rules & Orders which provides that “whenever possible the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may be, fix fresh dates in cases fixed for the date which is declared a holiday or for which he has obtained leave, and issue notices to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, of the fresh dates fixed” and this part of the Rule 4 has been deleted vide correction slip No.32 dated 07.05.1988 and is no more available as a part of Rule 4. Meaning thereby, in case of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question shall be deemed to be automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the duty of the parties or their counsel (but not of witnesses) to attend the Court on that day. The question of issuance of notice to the parties, which was provided by the latter part of this Rule and has been interpreted in the case of Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand (supra), has already been deleted in the year 1988.

Thus, the first question, which has been framed in the beginning of the judgment, is decided accordingly.

(Para 1,7-10)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(2)(i) -- Rules & Orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Rule 4 Chapter 1 Part K Volume 1 – Arrears of rent -- Tender of rent -- Holiday – Duties of the parties -- If the adjourned date is not an unanticipated holiday but a holiday already declared in the calendar for the judicial Courts for the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh or is a Sunday, then in that circumstance, Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders would not be applicable because it deals with only an unanticipated holiday and not a holiday which is already known -- In this regard, no rule is brought to the notice of the Court by the parties and in these circumstances, the parties appearing before the Court in such type of cases, can always pray for a date for proper orders.

……..

b)      whether if the holiday is not unanticipated, but the case is adjourned by the Presiding Officer to a Sunday or a declared holiday, is he required to fix a date for proper orders by taking up the case on the next working day?

Now the second question involved in this revision petition is that if the adjourned date is not an unanticipated holiday but a holiday already declared in the calendar for the judicial Courts for the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh or is a Sunday, then in that circumstance, Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders would not be applicable because it deals with only an unanticipated holiday and not a holiday which is already known. In this regard, no rule is brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel for the parties and in these circumstances, the parties appearing before the Court in such type of cases, can always pray for a date for proper orders.

(Para 1,11)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(2)(i) -- Rules & Orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Rule 4 Chapter 1 Part K Volume 1 – Arrears of rent -- Tender of rent – Eviction of tenant -- Date fixed for tendering of rent by the tenants was fixed at Sunday -- Rent Controller took up the case on the next working day, but on that date, the counsel for the tenants did not ask for fixing a date for proper orders, rather prayed for extension of time on the ground that the tenants has not come forward for the purpose of tendering rent due to death of a close relative – Tenant did not lead any prima facie evidence in this regard, it is possible that on that date the tenants were not having arrangement of the rent to be paid as it is evident, dispossession of the tenants was stayed subject to their clearing the entire arrears of rent within 10 days from the said date, but despite that order, the tenants tendered the rent beyond the period of 10 days – Eviction order, upheld.

The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 17.12.2010, assessed the provisional rent @ Rs.4,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2008 till February, 2010 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and costs of Rs.1,000/- which was ordered to be tendered by the tenants on 28.03.2010, which fell on a Sunday, therefore, the learned Rent Controller took up the case on 29.03.2010 as it was automatically adjourned for the next working day in terms of Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court [for short “Rules & Orders”]. The counsel for the tenants appeared on 29.03.2010, but the rent was not tendered, rather the extension of time was prayed on the pretext that a close relative of the tenants has expired. The landlady opposed the prayer of the tenants and alleged that the case is not required to be adjourned because the effective date of hearing, which falls on a holiday, is the next working day and since the tenants are not prepared with the amount of rent assessed by the learned Rent Controller, therefore, they are indulging into dillydallying tactics. The learned Rent Controller observed that the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time for the purpose of tendering the rent in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 and as such, the order of eviction was passed on 29.03.2010. The tenants then filed statutory appeal before the learned Appellate Authority which was also dismissed on the ground that in case of non-tendering of the provisionally assessed rent on the date fixed, the learned Rent Controller had no other alternative but to pass the eviction order in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) and also the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(2) PLR 201. It was also observed by the learned Appellate Authority that the tenants had not disclosed the date of death of their relative (father-in-law).

Reverting back to the merits of the case, it would be relevant to mention that it was Sunday on 28.03.2010, the date which was fixed for tendering of rent by the tenants and consequently, the learned Rent Controller took up the case on the next working day on 29.03.2010, but on that date, the counsel for the tenants did not ask for fixing a date for proper orders, rather he prayed for extension of time on the ground that the tenants has not come forward for the purpose of tendering rent due to death of a close relative. They did not lead any prima facie evidence in this regard from which the Court could have found that the reason assigned by the counsel for the tenants is not a ploy to seek extension of time for the purpose of tendering rent because it is possible that on that date the tenants were not having arrangement of the rent to be paid as it is evident from the fact that while issuing notice of motion in this case, dispossession of the petitioners/tenants was stayed subject to their clearing the entire arrears of rent within 10 days from the said date, but despite that order, the tenants tendered the rent beyond the period of 10 days as it was deposited on 10.09.2010, whereas it was required to be deposited on 09.09.2010. The learned Appellate Authority had also found that the tenants have not disclosed the alleged date of death of their relative, therefore, they were disbelieved on this account as well.

 (Para 3, 12)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- NRI landlord – Lease for 99 years – Ownership – Petition u/s 13-B maintainable – Leave to defend -- Tenant filed an application seeking 'leave to defend', which has been allowed by the Rent Controller only on the ground that the petitioner is not the owner and is rather a lessee having a lease of 99 years of the demised premises from the P.S.S.I.C -- “Whether a licensee of a property for a period of 99 years having a right to possession and transfer falls within the definition of owner for the purpose of a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act ? – “Whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the Act ?” -- Question posed by the Landlord is to be answered in his favour -- Order of Rent Controller set aside – Since leave to defend is being declined, the matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller, to pass order of eviction in accordance with law. Swadesh Ranjan Sinha’s case 1991 (4) SCC 572 relied.

In the said petition, the respondent had filed an application seeking 'leave to defend', which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 06.8.2005 only on the ground that the petitioner is not the owner and is rather a lessee having a lease of 99 years of the demised premises from the Punjab State Small Industries Corporation Limited, Chandigarh (for short,’ the Corporation') which was allotted to him vide allotment letter dated 13.5.1982.

…..

The core issue of this case is as to “whether a licensee of a property for a period of 99 years having a right to possession and transfer falls within the definition of owner for the purpose of a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act ?”

…..

The only question which arises in the present appeal is:-

“whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the Act ?”

…..

After going through the aforesaid observations and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the question posed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be answered in his favour. As such, the present revision is allowed and the impugned order in which the Rent Controller has held that the petitioner is merely a lease holder and is not the owner despite the fact that the lease is for a period of 99 years giving the petitioner right of transfer and inheritance as per clause of the lease, is set aside.

Insofar as the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that there were other issues involved, the Rent Controller has specifically observed in the impugned order that some hyper technical grounds were taken by the applicant/tenant to earn leave to contest but the only ground which favours him is the ground of ownership of the premises. Reading of these observations leads to the conclusion that the hyper technical grounds were considered by the Court and rejected.

Since leave to defend is being declined by this Court, the matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, to pass order of eviction in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear on 28.2.2011.

 (Para 2, 7, 12, 14-16)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A – NRI landlord – Leave to defend – Eviction -- Where u/s 13-B of the Act, leave is refused to the tenant to defend the proceedings brought by the N.R.I. landlord, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence.

Apart from the specific provisions of the Act, reproduced above, particularly those contained in sub-section 4 of Section 18-A, the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 59 had occasion to deal with the very same provisions of the Act. After an elaborate discussion, which is available in the text of the judgment, the Apex Court came to a conclusion that the provisions of Section 13-B wafid-require the tenant to bring on record evidence of a very strong character to rebut the legal presumption that is inbuilt in Section 18-A of the Act with regard to the need of the N.R.I. landlord in respect of the tenanted premise. Only upon such convincing evidence being laid before the Rent Controller, leave to defend can be granted, failing which, obviously, the legal presumption with regard to the need of the landlord would continue to hold the field.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us an order of the Apex Court dated 19.01.2009, passed in Civil Appeal No. 347 of 2009 titled as Kamal Raj Bansal v. Rajpal Singh in which the Apex Court, according to the learned counsel, has taken the view that even after rejection of the leave to defend, the landlord would be obliged to prove his case. Another judgment of the Apex Court in Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 162 has also been placed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the N.R.I. landlord would have still to prove his case after leave to defend is refused to the tenant. The order dated 19.01.2009 in Kamal Raj Bansal (supra), in our considered view, does not erode the efficacy of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra) inasmuch as neither the decision in Baldev Singh Bajwa (supra) has been referred to in the said order nor the detailed reason for the conclusion reached is available in the order of the Court. In so far as the decision in Modula India's case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court in the said case was dealing with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which do not contain provisions pari materia with Section 13-B and 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Moreover, in Modula India (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where the defence of the defendant-tenant was struck off. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the decision in Modula India's case (supra) does not detract from the principles of law laid down in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra).

The above discussions would lead us to the conclusion that(in a situation where under Section 13-B of the Act, leave is refused to the tenant to defend the proceedings brought by the N.R.I. landlord, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence.

 (Para 3-5)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI Landlord – Building – Number of shops in building – Right of landlord – Contention that recourse could had to the provisions of Section 13-B only once which would support the theory that each shop room or other premises in the building would have to be treated as a separate unit and the landlord would be entitled to make a choice as to which of the units he wished to take possession of immediately, since the landlord had already obtained possession of a portion of the building, it must be deemed that he had exhausted his option as given under Section 13-B and in order to evict the other tenants from the premises in question, he would have to file regular eviction petitions before the Rent Controller concerned, who would have to deal with the same in the regular manner without resorting to the emergency provisions of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act – Contention repelled, the interpretation sought to be given to the proviso to Section 13-B(1) of the 1949 Act would lead to an absurd situation which was not contemplated by the legislature while introducing the provisions of Section 13-B by way of amendment in 2001 -- The very object of the amendment would be frustrated if the narrow and constricted meaning being canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is to be accepted. Baldev Singh Bajwa’s case, JT 2005 (12) SC 442 relied.

(Para 8, 12, 13)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-A, 18-A(4)(5)(6) – Specified landlord – Retired employee – Leave to contest – Object of provision -- Section 13-A enshrines a special provision for a retired landlord to get the rented residential or scheduled building vacated from tenant – Tenant is required to obtain leave to contest within a period of fifteen days of service of summons -- If the leave is declined, then the Rent Controller is to decide the eviction application summarily, but on the other hand, if the leave is granted, then he shall commence the hearing on a date not later than one month from the date on which such leave was granted and shall hear the application from day-to-day till the hearing is concluded and the application is decided – Held, mandate of sub-sections (4) to (6) is unambiguous in this regard -- Ostensible purpose of having such a procedure is to obviate and mitigate the sufferings of a landlord, who retires from service and has no residential premises and is desirous of retrieving the same from his tenant.

(Para 12)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 13-A, 18-A(4)(5)(6) – Retired employee -- Commercial building – Bonafide need – Eviction of tenant -- Petition was filed u/s 13-A, yet, the trial of the case proceeded as if it was a petition u/s 13 – Contention that the petition having been styled u/s 13-A could have only been answered qua the premises which were residential in nature – Now there is no distinction between residential and commercial premises in so far as the bona fide need of a landlord is concerned -- If the respondent wanted to get the demised premises vacated and that too in the evening of his life, it can hardly be said that need was not bona fide. Harbilas Rai Bansal’s case 1995(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 672 (S.C.) and Ashok Kumar’s case 2010(1) R.C.R. 63 (S.C.) relied.

(Para 13, 16)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 13-A, 15, 18-A(4)(5)(6) – Petition u/s 13-A of the Act – Right to Appeal -- Even though the petitioner was issued summons in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-A and the Schedule II of the Act and leave to defend was granted by the Rent Controller, yet, the trial of the case proceeded as if it was a petition u/s 13 – Appeal filed by the landlord was maintainable as the procedure of trial of a petition u/s 13 of the Act was adopted by the Rent Controller.

(Para 13,15)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13-A(1A) – Landlord -- Retired Employee – Relationship of landlord-tenant -- Provision confers a right to seek eviction of the tenant through summary procedure provided that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists at least a year prior to the date of retirement -- Tenancy was created on the next day of retirement -- Landlord did not fall within the special category of 'landlords' taken care of by Section 13-A of the Act -- Like any other landlord, landlord could file an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act to seek the tenant’s eviction on one of the permissible grounds.

(Para 13-15)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13-A – Retired Employee – Leave to contest -- Scope of Provision – Procedure for Disposal -- If a landlord falls within the specified category of sub-section [1] or [1-A], he can seek eviction of his tenant from the residential premises by way of a summary procedure – However, when the Rent Controller finds that the tenant has raised triable issues and grants him leave to contest, in that event the application for eviction is required to be disposed of by following the same  procedure as is to be followed by the Rent Controller while deciding other eviction applications under the Act.

(Para 16-19)

C. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13, 13-A(1A),13-A(8), 15(2) – Retired Employee – Leave to contest -- Eviction – Right to Appeal -- An erroneous nomenclature of a petition or reference to a wrong provision of law would per-se not vitiate the proceedings, if otherwise conducted as per the procedure prescribed by the law -- Though the eviction petition filed by the respondent is purportedly under Section 13[1-A] of the Act, nevertheless the Rent Controller treated it and followed the same procedure as has been prescribed for deciding an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act -- While returning the findings on the issues framed, the Rent Controller has guided itself by the statutory ingredients of Section 13 of the Act, to be satisfied while accepting a landlord's application for eviction on the ground of personal necessity -- In other words, the eviction order, though descripted under Section 13[1A], in fact, has been passed under Section 13 of the Act only – That being so, an erroneous reference to a provision of law by the Rent Controller can not take away the substantive right to appeal provided to a tenant, if ordered to be evicted under Section 13 of the Act – Tenant have a right to appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Act.

(Para 21-23)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Landlord -- Co-owner -- Landlady claims herself to be an exclusive owner in the eviction petition -- Even if she is the co-owner of the property, then as a co-owner, she is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant -- Mere fact that the landlady has asserted herself to be an exclusive owner in the eviction proceedings, does not make the eviction petition not maintainable.

(Para 8)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Landlord-tenant relationship – Ownership – Dispute of – Jurisdiction of – Inter-se dispute(s) of the co-owners cannot be raised in the eviction proceedings as the Rent Controller has to examine the question of relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties.

(Para 9)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Tenant alleging that during the pendency of the case the Landlady wrote a letter showing intention to sell the property, negates her claim for bonafide need  – Held, when a litigant is before the Court for number of years, different thoughts come to the mind of the litigant, but the same is not sufficient to return a finding that the landlady does not have any bona-fide personal requirement of her valuable property.

(Para 12)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 3 – Delegated legislation – Exemption – While considering the validity of delegated legislation, the scope of judicial review is limited but the scope and effect thereof has to be considered having regard to the nature and object thereof.

(Para 16)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 3 – Delegated legislation – Exemptions – Judicial review of delegated legislation is, permissible.

(Para 16-26)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 1 – Legislative policy – Preamble – Statement of object and reasons -- Legislative Policy of a State can be gathered from the Preamble, the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the core provisions contained therein -- Rent Act is a beneficent legislation which sought to protect a category of the tenants occupying rented buildings specified therein not only from enhancement of rent, but also from unreasonable eviction -- Act furthermore provides for protection of the tenants from unreasonable harassment at the hands of the landlords.

(Para 84)

D. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 106 – Notice – Termination of tenancy -- Transfer of Property Act governed the field relating to eviction of all kinds of tenants -- For eviction of a monthly tenant, 15 days' notice ending with the tenancy month, is sufficient to bring an action for a landlord to evict his tenant -- Tenant, inter alia, could raise a defence of defect in the said notice in case eviction is sought for or applicability of other provisions thereof as also non-compliance of the other requirements contained therein.

(Para 85)

E. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 106 – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 1 – Notice – Termination of tenancy – Amenities -- Transfer of Property Act does not contain any provision empowering any court to regulate enhancement of rent -- No provision existed therein also for protection of tenants from harassment at the hands of the landlords, as for example, disconnecting the electrical and water connection from the tenanted premises -- Rent Control Act, on the other hand, was enacted to protect the tenant.

(Para 86)

F. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 3,4,5,6,10,13 -- Section 3 of the Act empowers the Administrator to issue an exemption notification -- Sections 4, 5 and 6 deal with determination of fair rent -- Section 10 prohibits the landlord from disconnecting electrical energy, etc -- Section13 enumerates the grounds upon which the landlord seeks eviction of a tenant.

(Para 87)

G. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 1 – Preamble -- Different Rent Control Acts enacted by different States use different preambles -- Some Acts provide for control of rents, eviction and rents, letting houses, the lease of vacant premises to Government and some Acts seek to control only enhancement of rent or fixation of rent, unreasonable eviction of tenants -- It is permissible to read the preamble of a statute to ascertain the legislative policy.

(Para 89)

H. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 1 –  Preamble -- The preamble being a part of the statute can be read along with other portions of the Act to give clear meaning to the provisions and to decide whether they are clear or ambiguous -- The preamble in itself is not an enacting provision as other relevant enacting words have to be found elsewhere in the Act -- Utility of the preamble diminishes if the statutory provisions are themselves capable of given a literal meaning.

(Para 90)

I. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 3 – Delegated legislation – Exemption – Power of -- Executive government can exercise its power of exemption in the following circumstances: (1) Where such exemption had been granted only for a limited period; (2) in respect of new buildings; (3) in respect of the government buildings, buildings belonging to the local-self government and other public sector undertakings; and (4) areas belonging to the Cantonment Board which was outside the purview of the applicability of the original act having regard to the fact that such areas of the cantonment are governed by separate Act, like Cantonment Acts. (5) Where the same would come within the purview of the delegated legislation. (6) Where the tenants or tenanted premises form a distinct and separate class. (7) Where having regard to the constitutional scheme that any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India would not treat its tenants in an unfair and arbitrary manner despite the rent control laws being not applicable in their case; as they would be treated to be forming a separate class; and (8) Where the exemption notification is granted for a limited period or in respect of new buildings for a limited period.

(Para 97)

J. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 3 – Delegated legislation – Exemption -- Power of -- Administrator will have no jurisdiction to issue a notification which would have a permanent impact -- Administrator cannot change the basic features of the law or act contrary to the legislative policy -- Legislature, on the other hand, can not only repeal the statute, it can change the basic features of the law.

(Para 98-99)

K. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 3 –  East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 (54 of 1974), Section 3,4 – National Housing policy – Legislative policy – Exemption from Rent Act – Notification – Chandigarh Administration issued notification exempting the building from the Rent Act, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.1500/- p.m. --  National Housing Policy recommended for step by step repeal of the Act and substituted the same by a new permanent Act -- Administrator in issuing the notification has missed the relevance of the distinction between the National Housing Policy and the legislative policy -- Change of legislative policy with the aid of the National Housing Policy was not within the domain of the Administrator and it was the sole prerogative of the legislature.

(Para 102-103)

L. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 3 –  East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 (54 of 1974), Section 3,4 – Exemption – Notification -- Chandigarh Administration issued notification exempting the building from the Rent Act, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.1500/- p.m. – For that purpose, no data collected nor has any study been made -- As to how the said criterion had been fixed is not known -- Except stating that the rent of Rs.1500/- to Rs.3500/- was made the criterion in terms of the National Housing Policy, the Administrator did not assign any other reason -- Rental of Rs.1500/- could not have been applied mechanically -- Rs.1500/- could not have been fixed as the quantum of rent for the purpose of extending the exemption provision under Section 3 of the Act.

(Para 124-132)

M. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 1,3 –  Legislative objective and policy – Preamble – Exemption – Power of -- Legislative objective and policy indisputably must be considered having regard to the preamble and other core provisions of the Act -- Section 3 although is a part of the Act, but the same cannot be said to contain an in-built policy so as to empower the Administrator to do all such things which can be done by the legislature itself.

(Para 133)

N. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 1,3 –  Legislative policy – Object of the Act -- Preamble – Exemption – Power of -- By taking recourse to the preamble, it cannot be said, that the power to exclude the tenanted premises can be exercised without taking into consideration the legislative policy and the object of the Act -- No arbitrary power as such has been conferred -- Action of the Administrator is indisputably subject to judicial review.

(Para 134)

O. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(a), 3 –  East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 (54 of 1974), Section 3,4 – Exemption – Notification -- Chandigarh Administration issued notification exempting the building from the Rent Act, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.1500/- p.m. – 'building' having regard to its definition would mean tenanted building -- Building fetching a rent to a prescribed extent can form the base for determining criterion for the purpose of classification -- But the same would not mean that the Administrator would be entitled to lay down a criterion which would be applicable only to a large section of the tenants.

(Para 135)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide requirement -- If necessary ingredients are not pleaded, the landlord is required to be provided with an opportunity to make necessary pleadings -- Tenant cannot be permitted to raise a plea that necessary ingredients have not been pleaded, having failed to raise such an objection in the written statement at the earliest opportunity and later objecting to such amendment at the Appellate Stage. Kesho Ram’s case 1977 RCR 623, relied.

(Para 8, 9)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide requirement -- One of the co-owners sold his 1/2 share vide registered sale deed during the pendency of the revision petition, but that will not frustrate the ground of eviction on bona-fide personal requirement pleaded in respect of the other landlords as well.

(Para 10)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI landlord – As a co-owner, NRI landlord is entitled to seek ejectment for his bonafide use and occupation of the premises in possession of tenant. Kewal Krishan’s case 2006(1) L.A.R. 179 relied.

(Para 3)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI landlord – Evidence through Power of attorney –Attorney is competent to depose in respect of all matters except, the matters which are required to be done personally by the principal -- In the present case, the statement of the Attorney is not such which could not be given by the Attorney -- No fault can be found with the statement of the Attorney who is none else but the son of the landlord -- Ejectment order passed ion terms of Section 13-B upheld.

(Para 18,19)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(dd), 13-B – Non-resident Indian – Landlords were earlier residing in India and subsequently acquired Canadian Nationality --Landlords are Non Resident Indians and, therefore, entitled to seek eviction of the tenant in terms of Section 13-B of the Act.

(Para 6)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Non-resident Indian – Co-owner – Non Resident Indian landlord/co-owner is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant in a summary manner although the other co-owners may not be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. Dhannalal’s case 2002(6)SCC 16 relied.

(Para 7)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Non-resident Indian – Co-owner – Maintainability of petition -- Major sons though co-owners not joined as party to the proceedings -- It would not adversely affect the maintainability of the proceedings.

(Para 7)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Non-resident Indian – Co-owner -- Non-resident Indian Landlord/Co-owner is competent to seek eviction under section 13-B of the Rent Act.

(Para 8)

E. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 13-B – Tenancy – Non-resident Indian -- Bonafide requirement of landlord proved -- Two shops were given on rent under one tenancy -- Since it is common tenancy in respect of both the shops, the tenant is liable to be evicted from both the shops -- Tenancy cannot be splitted.

(Para 9)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Landlord – Co-owner – Non Resident Indian -- Mere fact that landlord is a co-owner will not disentitle him from seeking eviction of a tenant of a joint property -- Till such time the property is actually partitioned by metes and bounds, landlord owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others – Landlord is competent to seek eviction under section 13-B of the Rent Act.

(Para 7)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Landlord – Co-owner – Non Resident Indian -- Landlord/co-owner is competent to seek eviction within the meaning of Section 13-B of the Act -- Co-owner is the owner along with other owners -- The mere fact that some other owners are also owning the property does not deprive a co-owner of his right to seek eviction.

(Para 8)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Landlord – Co-owner – Non Resident Indian -- Argument that preliminary decree has been passed in a suit for partition between the co-owners/landlord is of no help to the tenant -- Till final decree is passed, the property retains the character of joint property and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to seek ejectment being a co-owner.

(Para 11)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Sections 13-B and 19(2-B) -- NRI landlord – Eviction -- Section 13-B intends to provide immediate possession of the accommodation to the NRI landlord which is in possession of the tenant on the following conditions:

(i)    NRI landlord requires the premises for his or her use or for the use of any one ordi­narily living with him/her and is dependent on him or her.

(ii)   NRI-landlord is owner of the building from which he has asked ejectment of the tenant.

(iii)  NRI landlord is owner of that building for five years before he applied to the Controller for possession of such building.

(iv)  Immediate possession could be availed of only once during the life time of such an owner/NRI landlord.

(v)   NRI-landlord can select one among several others residential building or schedule build­ing and/or non-residential building for the purpose of eviction of the tenant from that prem­ises.

(vi)  Owner who recovers the possession of the building by virtue of the order passed under Section 13-B shall neither transfer it either by sale or by any other mode nor he shall let it out for the period of five years from the date he took possession of the building.

(vii) Section 19(2-B) contemplates that when the order for possession is being passed in favour of the owner-landlord under Section 13-B, he is required to occupy the premises continuously for the period of three months from the date of eviction of the tenant.

(Para 11)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Sections 13-B and 18-A(5) -- NRI landlord – Eviction -- Leave to contest – Tenant’s right to defend the claim of the landlord u/s 13-B for ejectment would arise if the tenant could be able to show that the landlord in the proceedings is not NRI landlord; that he is not the owner thereof or that his ownership is not for the required period of five years before the institution of proceedings and that the landlord’s requirement is not bona fide.

(Para 19)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Sections 13-B and 18-A(5) -- NRI landlord – Eviction -- Leave to contest – Allegations made by the NRI landlord of his requirement shall be presumed to be genuine and bonafide unless rebutted by the ten­ant by placement of cogent and material facts and evidence in support thereof at the stage of ‘leave to contest’ before the Controller -- Any other interpretation would completely whittle down and deny the tenant’s right to show and prove that landlord does not in fact, or in law require suit premises.

(Para 20, 22)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Sections 13-B and 18-A (5) -- NRI landlord – Eviction -- Leave to contest – Argument that that if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord’s need regarding the bonafide and genuineness is permitted, the legislative intent of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated is not tenable.

(Para 21)

E. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Sections 13-B and 18-A (5) -- NRI landlord – Object of the Legislation -- No doubt the legislative intent in enacting Section 13-B, is to provide for immediate possession of the accommodation owned by the NRI but it cannot be assumed that the legislature wants the NRI landlord/owner, to get the possession of the ac­commodation from the tenant even if he does not require it and the need pleaded is proved to be a mere pretext to get the accommodation vacated.

(Para 22)

F. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 1 -- Interpretation of Statute -- Object of the Legislation –

(i)    legislative intent has to be ascertained according to plain language used in the en­actment and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the pur­pose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice or absurdities.

(ii)   The golden rule of construction is that when the words of legislation are plain and un­ambiguous, effect must be given to them.

(iii)  The basic principle on which this rule is based since the words must have spoken as clearly to legislatures, as to judges, it may be safely pre­sumed that the legislature intended what the words plainly say.

(iv)  The legislative intent of the enactment may be gathered from several sources which is, from the statute itself, from the preamble to the statute, from the statement of objects and reasons, from the legislative de­bates, reports of committees and commissions which preceded the legislation and finally from all legitimate and admissible sources from where they may be allowed.

(v)   But the primary rule of construction would be to ascertain the plain language used in the enactment which advances the purpose and object of the legislation.

(Para 22)

G. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(dd),13-B -- NRI landlord – Eviction -- There is no requirement that NRI landlord has permanently settled in India on his return or he has returned to India with an intention to permanently settle in India.

(Para 23 to 25)

H. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Sections 2(dd) and 13B - NRI land­lord - Any person who has gone out of India and temporarily settled there for the purposes of undertaking certain course or degree of University would not be a NRI because his stay could not be said to be for an uncertain period.

(Para 24)

I. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(dd),13-B -- NRI landlord – Eviction -- Once in a life­time possession is given to a NRI to get one building vacated in a summary manner, a NRI landlord is required to prove that:-

(i) he is a NRI;

(ii)   that he has returned to India permanently or for the temporary period;

(iii)  requirement of the accommodation by him or his dependent is genuine; and

(iv)  he is the owner of the property for the last five years before the institution of the proceedings for ejectment before the Controller.

(Para 26)

J. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(dd),13-B -- NRI landlord – Eviction – Other proceedings which have been taken up by the landlord for ejectment under the gen­eral provisions of the Act, would not bar the proceedings taken up under the special provision connected with the welfare of the NRI.

(Para 42)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 15(v) – Revision – Additional evidence – Additional evidence sought to be led in the ejectment petition pending, is report of the Local Commissioner filed in another suit – Both parties have already examined building experts as their respective witnesses, in order to show the condition of shop, whereas the local commissioner, whose report the petitioner wants to produce in additional evidence, is not an expert in the filed – No ground for additional evidence.

(Para 3)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Commercial property -- Personal Necessity – Family Partition -- Oral partition of Hindu Undivided Family property is not prohibited it can be relied – Tenant has no right to challenge the family settlement -- Eviction order passed on the ground personal necessity, upheld.

The tenant-petitioner has no right to challenge the family settlement as has been held by this court in the case of Ram Lal vs. Harbhagwan Dass 1995(2) Rent Law Reporter 557. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that even oral partition of Hindu Undivided Family property is not prohibited. Reference in this regard could be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Nani Bai vs. Gita Bai AIR 1958 SC 706 and Roshan Singh vs. Zile Singh AIR 1988 SC 881 and Hans Raj Agarwal vs. CIT 2003(2) SCC 295. Moreover, oral partition to which reference has been made has been implemented as is evident from the fact that landlord-respondent no.1 has to run his clinic from the passage and that father of landlord-respondent no.1 has not been paid rent by the tenant-petitioner after 7.4.1995 i.e. after the judgement and decree passed on the basis of family settlement. In such a situation no doubt can be entertained with regard to the genuineness of the oral partition. Moreover, both the Courts below have concurrently found that the need of the landlord-respondent no.1 is bona-fide and it has to be considered as covered by Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Harbilas Rai Bansal vs. State of Punjab (1996)1 SCC 1. In Harbilas Rai Bansal’s case (supra) it was categorical held that the amendment incorporated by Punjab Act no.29 of 1956 was ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution as it deleted the right of occupation of commercial building on the ground of personal necessity, while retaining the same in respect of residential building.

In view of the above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.

 (Para 5, 6)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(2)(i) – Code of Civil Procedure, Order 9 Rule 6, 13 – Arrears of Rent – Ex-parte ejectment order -- Non-supply of ejectment petition alongwith summons is merely an irregularity cannot be ground for setting aside ex-parte ejectment order.

For the sake of argument, even if it is  presumed that no copy of the ejectment petition was received by the tenant-petitioner, it would at best be a mere irregularity within the meaning of proviso to Rule 8 of Order IX of the Code because on 8.8.1997 the tenant-petitioner was apprised that the date of appearance before the Court is 23.8.1997, as has been held by this Court in Dev Karan's case (supra).  Therefore, no ground is provided to set aside the impugned order.

 (Para 8)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(2)(i) – Arrears of Rent – Deposit of – Question of grant of opportunity to the tenant would not arise who has refused to appear before the court after summons have been duly served upon him alongwith ejectment petition – Benefit of Rakesh Wadhawan’s case, 2002(1) RCR 514 is not available.

The argument of learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner based on the judgment in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) would not be available because the question of grant of opportunity would not arise to a tenant who has refused to appear before the Court after summons have been duly served on him along with a copy of the ejectment petition.  It is evident that he was aware of the date of appearance before the Court which was fixed for 23.8.1997 and the summons were served on him on 8.8.1997.  There was ample opportunity given but the tenant-petitioner has failed to avail it.  In such an eventuality, the principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) would not be attracted.  The argument is wild and is imaginative.

 (Para 9)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15(5) – Code of Civil Procedure, Order 1 Rule 10 – Necessary party – Ejectment petition against the tenant – Application by another person for impleading him as party, claiming possession as tenant under some one else – Not a necessary party to be impleaded as no relief has been clamed by the landlord against him – Landlord/Petitioner is dominus litus and cannot be compelled to fight litigation against him.

(Para 4)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Sub-letting – Evidence – Photographs -- Photographs Marks C and D have been amply proved by oral evidence of the landlady as well as by admissions made by the witnesses produced by the tenant – Absence of negatives and photographer may assume some importance in criminal cases -- In civil cases that too before tribunal photographs authenticated by oral evidence must be treated as sufficient proof of its genuineness.

The witnesses have also deposed that the board of Popular Cycle Store has been installed on the portion where the smaller shutter is fixed. These photographs have not been denied when the tenant-petitioner was confronted and he infact admitted that his wife and daughter were visible in the photographs. It was stated by Lakhvinder Singh, PW-3, who is son of the landlady-respondent, that he got the photographs clicked and the negatives were torn by the tenant-petitioner under threat. In the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to take the view that the photographs Marks C and D have been amply proved by oral evidence of the landlady-respondent as well as by admissions made by the witnesses produced by the tenant-petitioner. The photographer stand substantively authenticated by oral statements. Afterall the object of calling the photographer in the witness box or for insisting on the production of negatives is to ensure that no doctored photographs are passed as genuine one. The absence of negatives and photographer may assume some significance in criminal cases. However, in civil cases that too before tribunal photographs authenticated by oral evidence must be treated as sufficient proof of its genuineness. In such circumstances, both the Courts below have adopted a correct approach by rejecting the argument that no photograph could be proved in the absence of negatives and photographer.

 (Para 8)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Sub-letting – Possession -- Once the landlord has proved exclusive possession of a third party without her consent of the demised premises, then, it is the duty of the tenant to explain the nature of possession of third party.

Once the landlady has proved exclusive possession of a third party without her consent of the demised shop, then, it is the duty of the tenant to explain the nature of possession of the third party. In this regard, reliance could be placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir Kaur versus S. Chokesiri and Company, (1989)1 SCC 19, United Bank of India versus Cooks and Kelvey Properties (P) Limited, (1994)5 SCC 9 and Bharat Sales Limited versus LIC of India, (1998)3 SCC1. If the primary fact of exclusive possession is proved by the tenant and there is no reasonable explanation tendered by the tenant-petitioner, then by operation of law, it could be assumed that there was some clandestine arrangement between the tenant and the sub tenant with regard to consideration of rent. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kala versus Madho Parshad Vaidya, (1998) 6 SCC 573.

(Para 9)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Sub-letting – Necessary Party – The sub tenant is merely a proper party and not a necessary party -- The ejectment petition in his absence is maintainable -- Absence of a proper party would not result into any damaging effect on the ejectment petition filed by the landlady-respondent.

The argument, that the sub tenant was a necessary party, has to be rejected because more than 50 years ago, the Supreme Court has held in the case of Importers and Manufactures Limited versus Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala, AIR 1953 SC 73 that the sub tenant is merely a proper party and not a necessary party and therefore the ejectment petition in his absence is maintainable. Therefore, absence of a proper party would not result into any damaging effect on the ejectment petition filed by the landlady-respondent.

(Para 10)

Rent Control and eviction – Bonafide requirement – Subsequent events – Eviction of tenants ordered for business of son of the landlord – During the pendency of the appeal, it was intended that son of the landlord had obtained degree in Engineering and settled in U.S.A. and there was no chance of his coming back to India – Claim is held to be based on probabilities, tenant is liable to be evicted – However tenant is entitled to re-possession if there is deviation from the purpose for which possession has been recovered – Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, Section 12(1)(f), 17.

In the background of the factual position one thing which clearly emerges is that the High Court had considered the subsequent events which the appellants highlighted and tend to hold that the bona fide need continues to subsist. As observed in Hasmat Rai's case (supra) the appellate Court is required to examine, evaluate and adjudicate the subsequent events and their effect. This has been done in the instant case. That factual finding does not suffer from any infirmity. What the appellants have highlighted as subsequent events fall within the realm of possibility or probability of non-return and a certainty, which is necessary to be established to show that the need has been eclipsed.

At this juncture it would be appropriate to take note of Section 17 of the Act. Same deals with consequences which statutorily follow if there is deviation from the purposes for which possession has been recovered. If in the instant case such contingency arises, the respondents shall re-deliver possession to the appellants-tenants on such terms as the Rent Controlling Authority shall fix.

(Para 18, 19)       

Rent Control and eviction – Bonafide requirement – Subsequent events – Where the possession is sought for personal necessity, the requirement pleaded by landlord must not only exist on the date of action but must also subsist till the final decree or order for eviction is made -- Court is required to examine, evaluate and adjudicate the subsequent events and their effect. Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, Section 12(1)(f).

In Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad (1981 (3) SCC 103) has taken care to emphasize that the subsequent events should have “wholly satisfied” the requirement of the party who petitioned for eviction on the ground of personal requirement. The relevant passage is extracted below:

“Therefore, it is now incontrovertible that where possession is sought for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action but must subsist till the final decree or an order for eviction is made. If in the meantime events have cropped up which would show that the landlord's requirement is wholly satisfied then in that case his action must fail and in such a situation it is incorrect to say that as decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the court to take into consideration subsequent events.”

As observed in Hasmat Rai's case (supra) the appellate Court is required to examine, evaluate and adjudicate the subsequent events and their effect.

(Para 10, 18)