East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Eviction petition – Additional ground by amendment – Permissibility of -- Amendment to add additional ground that premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation -- Application allowed by learned Rent Controller – Case being at the initial stage, the addition of the ground of ejectment can be allowed by way of amendment.

(Para 1,2,7)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13A, 18A – Specified landlord – Eviction petition -- Leave to defend – Pleadings -- Parties cannot go beyond the pleadings, this is especially true and stringent in case of applications seeking leave to defend -- Affidavit of the tenant is the only relevant document to be seen by the Controller at the stage of granting leave -- Section 13-A of the 1949 Act is applicable only to ‘residential’ and ‘scheduled buildings’’, does not form part of the petitioner’s application for leave to defend before the ld. Rent Controller -- Accordingly, said ground is not available to the petitioner at this belated stage.

(Para 15, 16)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13A, 18A – Specified landlord – Eviction petition -- Leave to defend – It is an unequivocally well-entrenched position in law that leave to contest is to be granted by the Controller, only if the affidavit of the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining recovery of the demised premises.

(Para 18)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(hh), 13A, 18-A – Specified landlord – Eviction petition – Leave to defend -- U/ 13-A only three ingredients have to be seen namely (a) whether the application u/s 13-A has been filed within one year or not after his retirement; (b) whether certificate is available indicating the date of retirement; and (c) that landlord has filed affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area or not in which he intends to reside and he wants possession of accommodation for his own use – All the above three ingredients are satisfied, nothing more is required to be seen, and the application of the petitioner-tenant to contest has to necessarily be denied.

(Para 24, 25)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13A, 18A – Specified landlord – Non-residential building -- Bonafide need to run Karyana shop -- Right to recovery granted under S. 13A is not limited to residential or scheduled buildings only -- Section 18A unambiguously broadens the scope of S.13A by including ‘Any residential building’ and ‘non-residential building’ within its purview -- Primacy has been given only to the bona fide requirement of the landlord, irrespective of the nature of the building, be it residential, non-residential, scheduled, or commercial -- Eviction order passed by the ld. Rent Controller upheld.

(Para 3, 4, 26-33)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Eviction petition -- Application for impleading more respondent -- In written statement, respondent-tenant asserted that the petition filed by the landlord is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties -- In order to obviate any subsequent difficulty, the landlord filed the application in order to meet with any future complication regarding the fate of the case -- Respondent and the persons who are sought to be impleaded, are members of the family -- Rent Controller erred in dismissing the application for impleadment -- Petitioner is entitled to file a petition covering all the aspects -- Petitioner's application for impleadment shall stand allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Eviction of lessee -- Mesne profit – High Court has considered the fair rate of return @ 6.5% annually on the amount of Rs. 5.50 crores for which the appellant purchased the property in the year 2008, determining the monthly compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- – Aforesaid method cannot be accepted, High Court was required to undertake exercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises – Matter remitted back to High court.

(Para 7-8)

A. Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (15 of 1960), Section 22 -- Assessment of rent -- Appellant purchased the property from the previous owner relied upon a letter of Attornment of Tenancy issued by the erstwhile landlord, indicating the monthly rent to be Rs.3,200/ -- High Court held that this letter of Attornment of Tenancy was not sufficient to prove the monthly rent to be Rs.3,200/-, previous landowner ought to have been examined by the appellant in this regard – Held, proceedings before the Rent Controller are summary in nature, High Court went wrong in reversing the finding given by the Appellate Authority in this regard.

(Para 6)

B. Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (15 of 1960), Section 22 -- Bonafide need for set-up business of son -- On the ground that the eldest son of the appellant was still pursuing studies, the High Court held that the requirement of the appellant was not bona fide – Held, there is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies, to start a business -- High Court, for a moment did not realize that it was dealing with a revision, where its jurisdiction was limited -- Order of the High Court is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

(Para 9)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 116 -- Arrear of rent – Provisional assessment of rent – Disputing Landlord’s ownership – Provisional rent was tendered without reserving any right to dispute ownership of the landlord – At the time of assessment of provisional rent also, no dispute about the ownership was raised by the tenants – Besides, after attornment they/tenants are estopped from disputing ownership of the landlord.

(Para 7)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Order 14 Rule 5, Order 41 Rule 25 -- Additional issue – Disputing Landlord’ ownership -- Rent Controller declined the tenants’ application to raise additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord  -- Subsequently, by two orders, the tenants were again not permitted to amend their written statement to dispute the ownership -- Said orders have attained finality – No occasion for the tenants to agitate the issue again before High Court – It is an abuse of the process of law – Orders were passed by the Rent Controller based upon the reasoning given in the orders, declined to frame the Issues -- It cannot by any stretch of imagination, therefore, be said that the Controller has “omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact” --  Therefore, provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC are not applicable – Held, tenants could not invoke by filing the application, beseeching the Appellate Authority to frame additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord and refer the same to the Rent Controller for recording evidence thereupon -- Nor could the tenant file the other application Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing of issues -- Revision dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

(Para 9-10)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 – Eviction of tenant -- Personal necessity – Resjudicata -- Previous petition was for seeking eviction on account of the personal necessity qua the son of the petitioner, whereas in the present petition, which is filed after 07 years, personal necessity is pleaded on account of the fact that the petitioner himself has retired and has already shifted to Mohali for which he requires his house – Petitioner-tenant failed to prove that the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata -- Eviction order upheld.

(Para 18,19)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 17(4A), 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order VII Rule 11 – SARFAAESI proceedings – Lessee rights -- Rejection of plaint – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Once there is a specific amendment enabling the persons claiming tenancy or lease hold rights to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Civil Court has erred in rejecting the application -- Even the period of lease has already expired -- Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(Para 1-4)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Bonafide need – FIR u/s 323, 324, 326, 34 IPC against tenant, landlady suffered grievous injuries in the incident -- She was not staying in the demised premises despite being the owner establishes that the petitioner/tenant had become a threat and nuisance to her -- It is only the petitioner/tenant who has driven the respondent/landlady out of the premises -- Petitioner/tenant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and questionable criminal behaviour by saying that the demised premises being unoccupied would establish that the landlady did not need it for bona fide personal necessity.

(Para 1, 9, 10)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13(3)(a)(i) -- Eviction of tenant from shop -- Bonafide need of employee son -- Argument that the son of the landlord-respondent was an employee and hence the need could not be held to be bonafide and genuine deserves to be rejected on the ground that a person cannot be expected to sit idle till the premises are vacated.

(Para 13)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13(3)(a)(i) -- Eviction of tenant from shop -- Bonafide need of son -- Non-compliance of the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the 1973 Act -- Argument qua non-compliance raised for the first time before High Court – No merit in the revision petition, dismissed.

(Para 15, 16)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Eviction of tenant -- Provisional rent assessed -- Petitioner, despite having been granted an opportunity, has failed to make the payment -- Consequently, his eviction was ordered -- Appeal filed by the petitioner dismissed – Petitioner has not paid any penny, till date -- No ground to interfere, revision dismissed.

(Para 1-3)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Eviction petition -- Amendment in written statement – Rent Controller permitted the respondent to amend the written statement without examining the effect thereof -- In the original written statement, he admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the petition -- However, by way of the proposed amendment, he now wants to take a destructively contradictory stand, he claims that there is no relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties to the petition -- Order permitting the amendment to the extent of denying relationship of landlord and tenant is set aside.

(Para 3-7)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 -- Long pendency of rent petition -- Rent petition remained pending for the last 13 years -- Rent Controller directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of 6 months.

(Para 8)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Withdrawal of rent petition – Permission to continue with fresh petition -- Landlady wished not to continue with the rent petition as it suffers from the technical defaults and has already filed a fresh petition after removing the said defects -- Order was passed in the presence of the learned counsel representing the tenants never objected to the withdrawal of the petition – Once the court has permitted the landlady to withdraw the petition in view of the statement of her counsel, the permission is inherent in the same.

(Para 6-8)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(d)(g)(h), Section 13, 13-A -- Specified landlord -- Non-residential building -- Whether u/s 13-A a specified landlord is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building or not -- Legislature has restricted the right to recover immediate possession only to residential or scheduled building in favour of the specified landlords -- This was done with the object of mitigating the bonafide requirements of the landlords who are retiring from defence forces or other Central or State Governments – Rules of interpretation cannot be stretched to such an extent in order to defeat the object of the statute -- Once the expression employed by the statute is clear and categoric, the Court cannot use its interpretative tools to defeat its object -- Section 13-A of the 1949 Act is specifically restricted only to the “residential” and “scheduled building” -- In 1985, the legislature in its wisdom did not extend its applicability to the “non-residential building” – U/s 13, the landlord is entitled to evict tenant from non-residential building -- However, such benefit has not been extended under Section 13-A of the 1949 Act -- Legislature while amending the provisions of the Act in the year 2001, introduced Section 13-B in order to enable the Non Resident Indians to seek immediate eviction of the tenants from “residential” or “scheduled building” and or from the “non-residential building --  Even at that time, the legislature did not amend Section 13-A of the Act and did not include the expression “non-residential” in it – Submission that the matter should be referred to the Division Bench because in Dr. Madan Lal’s case 2010(4) R.C.R.(Civil), 203, a Coordinate Bench has held that Section 13-A is also applicable to the “non-residential building” – Held, Court would have referred the matter in absence of the judgment passed by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Dev Brat Sharma's case, 1990 (Sup) SCC 724.

(Para 1-12)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- NRI landlord – Execution proceedings – Non-decisioning upon – Revisional Jurisdiction -- Petitioner is 87 years old NRI and the matter has been dragging since 2013 -- Petition disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to make earnest endeavours to decide the executing proceedings within a period of three months, in accordance with law.

(Para 1-3)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 -- Bonafide need – Eviction of tenant -- Non-appearance of landlady – Effect of -- Both the authorities found that the landlady requires the premises for herself as well as for her brother-in-law -- Landlady is a widow and she wants to work alongwith brother of her husband – It is evident that brother-in-law of the landlady, has appeared as AW2 -- It is the case of the landlady that she requires the shop for her as well as the use of her brother-in-law -- Once he has appeared and cross-examined at length, ejectment petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of non-appearance of the landlady – Revision of tenant dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need for one of the landlords – Unsafe and unfit for human habitation -- Appellate authority allowed the eviction petition – Keeping in view the report of Building Expert, examined by the tenant, it is evident that the building has lost its life – As regards the argument with regard to sale of the property, it is evident that those properties were the pieces of land and are in occupation of the other tenants -- In such circumstances, the aforesaid properties were not available to the landowners – Non-appearance of needy landlord-RP in evidence – Other landlord KP appeared in evidence and stated that RP does not have any work -- Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and in view of the report submitted by the Building Expert, Court does not find it appropriate to interfere in the decision made by the Appellate Authority.

(Para 5, 11-16)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of rent petition -- Ejectment petition at the very initial stage inasmuch as issues are yet to be framed -- Landlord-respondent has sought the eviction of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of himself and his wife and in the petition it has been mentioned that he has not vacated any such building in the urban area concerned without any sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Amendment sought is that wife has also not vacated any building in the urban area concern without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act-III, 1949 in the urban area concern nor she is occupying any other building in the urban area concern – Amendment allowed by Rent Controller – Revision by tenant dismissed

(Para 5-9)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Eviction petition – Arrears of rent -- Provisional rent was assessed at Rs.5,34,665/- -- Appeal against pending – Expeditious decision -- Appeal pending consideration before the Appellate Authority ever since 21.12.2019 and more than 40 effective hearings have taken place yet no final order has been passed, next date before the Appellate Authority is 22.04.2022 -- Appellate Court directed to expeditiously decide and dispose of the appeal within two weeks from the next date of hearing fixed.

(Para 1-3)

Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (1 of 2003), Section 18 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 106 -- Termination of tenancy – Suit for possession – Rent Act become applicable to the premises during the pendency of suit – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Section 18 does not talk about the validity of any decree of the civil court but only restricts the jurisdiction of the civil court from the date the Act became applicable -- Act has come into force in respect of the premises in question after the civil suit was filed, therefore, the decree could validly be passed and executed -- Decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable which is not interdicted by the applicability of the Act to the area in question -- One of the principles is that the rights of the parties have to be determined on the date when lis commences i.e., on the date of filing of the suit -- Plaintiff is entitled to decree on that day when he initiated the proceedings, therefore, rights of the parties have to be examined as on the said day.

(Para 28, 29)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 – Eviction proceedings – Personal necessity -- Landlady 86 years old – Revision to expedite the proceedings -- Petition disposed off with a request to the Rent Controller to conclude the ejectment proceedings expeditiously preferably within a period of one year.

(Para 1-3)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 24 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- NRI landlord -- Ejectment petition under 1949 Act -- Amendment seeking deletion of the provisions “u/s 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949” and to replace it with the words “u/s 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995” wherever it was so mentioned and further to add the words that the petitioner has since then returned to India permanently – Rent controller allowed the amendment – Court below considering that the plea of tenant whether the landlord has come permanently and settled in India or not, is subject to the decision of the Court on merits after evidence – Order under assail needs to be upheld.

(Para 2-8)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 4, 5, 13, 15 – Eviction of tenant – Mesne profit in appeal/ Revision  – Fair rent -- Fixation of fair rent is not synonymous with the expression mesne profits -- Once the tenant has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, then his status as a tenant is subject to the decision of the appellate Court -- In such circumstances, the Courts have developed the concept of making the tenant liable to pay mesne profit which is nearly the market rent -- This concept has been devised in order to enable the landlord to recover the market rent during the pendency of appeal and revisions -- Hence, the mesne profit cannot be assessed only on the basis of fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller.

(Para 7)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 15 – Mesne profit – Setting aside of – Mesne profits @.10,000/- per month with effect from 20.09.2021 – Submission that the appellate authority has arbitrarily fixed the mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month without considering any cogent and relevant material – Held, appellate authority has rightly observed that the mesne profit is not rent which landlord would have earned in the open market and there has to be an element of reasonableness while assessing the same -- Relevant factors for assessing the mesne profits are location, carpet area of the premises, nature of business being carried out, prevailing rates of rent in the neighbourhood etc. -- No material such as registered lease/rent deeds of shops in the neighbourhood were placed on record either by the petitioner-tenant or the respondent-landlord -- Appellate authority has assessed the mesne profits at a very reasonable rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and it cannot be said to have acted in an arbitrary manner.

(Para 1,2,5-7)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 15 – Mesne profit – Dispute for landlord-tenant relationship -- Whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not is a matter to be adjudicated upon on merits by the appellate authority and cannot be gone into while assessing mesne profits.

(Para 7)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant – Arrears of rent – Tenant disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant – Provisional assessment of rent – Right of – Held, if the tenant disputes the relationship of the landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller is not obliged to assess the provisional rent.

(Para 3)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012) -- Eviction petition under 1949 Act in 2018 – Conversion of petition in 1995 Act -- Ground on which the ejectment have been sought are available under the 1995 Act -- Rent petition is at an initial stage -- At the most, the petition can be said to be suffering from a curable defect -- Question is whether the High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction dismiss the ejectment petition or permit a formal amendment so as to advance the cause of justice – Held, second option would be in consonance with the intention of the Statute as the statute is a beneficial legislation -- Eviction petition would be deemed to have been amended and filed under the new Act, i.e. the 1995 Act.

(Para 6-8)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 -- Bonafide need -- Eviction by Rent Controller -- Affirmed by Appellate Authority – Challenged in revision -- Landlord wishes to start his business of general merchandise -- He has stepped into the witness box and supported his petitions -- Despite searching questions tenants have failed to impeach his credibility -- It would not be appropriate to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority with respect to bona fide requirement.

(Para 6)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI landlord -- Ejectment petition -- Findings of the Rent Controller with regard to ownership – Nature of -- Findings of the Rent Controller with regard to the ownership cannot be said to be a final adjudication.

(Para 2-4)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Rent law – Eviction petition -- Amendment in pleadings -- Once the trial has commenced, the Court should not allow amendment in pleadings -- It is not the case of the petitioner that certain new facts came to his knowledge after the commencement of the trial -- All the facts which the petitioners are wanting to incorporate were well within their knowledge -- Moreover, the amendment in the plaint has been sought by the petitioners at a highly belated stage when the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments – Application dismissed – Revision against that order dismissed.

(Para 1, 10)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 -- Arrears of rent – Assessment of Provisional rent – Non-deposit of – Covid-19 situation -- Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent on 27.10.2021 and adjourned the case to 02.11.2021 -- Finding that no rent has been tendered, the Court adjourned the case to 26.11.2021 -- On that day, the tenant tendered the rent, however, the petitioner/landlord refused to accept the rent amount -- Court after noticing various orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as by the High Court with regard to exclusion of the period to certain extent due to Covid-19 pandemic, permitted the parties to proceed with the case – Petitioner submits that the tenant did not tender the rent on or before 02.11.2021, the Court was required to pass any order of eviction – Held, argument has two fundamental flaws -- First, the order assessing the provisional rent was passed on 27.10.2021 and the Court wrongly adjourned the case giving only for a duration of 5 days between the date -- An appropriate/ reasonable time as per law was not granted to the tenant -- Furthermore, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Courts have been liberally extending the time due to obstructed functioning of normal life -- No ground to interfere is made out.

(Para 7, 8)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the petition dismissed – Eviction order passed – Challenge to order passed in application – Maintainability of – Held, once, the final order has been passed in the eviction petition, the revision petition rendered infructuous.

(Para 1, 2)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI landlord – Non-disclosing of other property in petition -- Respondent-landlord has disclosed the aforesaid property in his own affidavit – Held, there is no intentional concealment of material facts disentitling him from the order of eviction.

(Para 5)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI landlord – Return back to India – Requirement of -- Landlord is not required to return to India to file an eviction petition.

(Para 7)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant -- Arrears of rent – Provisional assessment of rent – Non deposit of – Covid-19 situation – Effect of – On 15.10.2020, courts resumed limited functioning -- Notice was issued to the petitioners-tenants for 11.11.2020 for making payment of provisional rent in accordance with order dated 05.03.2020 -- On the said date no rent was tendered -- Despite being given repeated adjournments, the petitioners-tenants failed to tender the provisional rent – Eviction order upheld. Rakesh Wadhawan’s case 2002(2) PLR 370 relied.

(Para 1-6)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Ejectment of tenant – Bonafide need -- Death of landlord – Effect of -- Contention that the landlord died therefore the personal necessity ceased to exist – Held, rights of the landlord not only crystallized on the date of filing of the revision petition but also at the time when the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction – Petitioner failed to point out any error in the orders passed by the Rent controller as well as the Appellate Authority  -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 3-8)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) , Section 13 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 106 -- Eviction of statutory tenant -- Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Acquisition of leased property by Central government – Tenancy rights further transposed into Bharat Petroleum by Central Government – Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is held to be barred and remedial mechanism for ejectment could be possible only under the provisions of the Act 1973.

(Para 19-21)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Arrears of rent – Provisional assessment of rent – Excess of -- Rent assessed is only provisional and if the final adjudication by the Rent Controller is at variance with this provisional assessment and if the amount deposited by the petitioner-tenant is found to be in excess, the Rent Controller can direct a refund.

(Para 10)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 15 Rule 5 – Arrears of rent – Assessment of -- Argument that Rent Controller ought to have assessed the rent as laid down in Order 15 Rule 5 CPC cannot be accepted.

(Para 11)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Rent laws – Evidence by power of attorney -- Power attorney holder who does not have personal knowledge of the facts cannot depose in respect of the matter qua which the principal alone would have personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is to be cross-examined -- Rent note (Ex.P-1) was drafted by the husband of the respondent-landlady i.e. her power attorney holder – It cannot thus be said that the power attorney holder did not have knowledge about the facts.

(Para 13)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Denial of relationship of landlord-tenant – Assessment of arrears of rent – Ejectment of tenant -- Since the relationship of landlord and tenant itself was denied, which stand proved by way of evidence, there was no requirement for the Rent Controller to assess the rent and the petitioner-tenant would be liable for ejectment that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood proved and that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent.

(Para 17)

A. Civil Proceedings – Nature of -- It is well settled that the civil proceedings are required to be decided on preponderance of probabilities.

(Para 5)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B – NRI landlord – Bonafide need -- British Passport – Effect of -- Right is given only once in the lifetime of an owner -- Argument that since the respondent applied for British Passport after filing the petition therefore, the Court must draw an adverse inference that he is not serious to return India – Held, there is no occasion to such an inference in absence of material to that effect merely, because the respondent (landlord) applied for and was issued a British Passport does not necessarily carry on assumption, that the respondent is not interested in coming back to India.

(Para 7)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Eviction of tenant – Appeal by tenant -- Mesne profit – Right of -- Effect of lockdown/Covid-19 -- Interim protection from eviction and direction to the petitioner to pay the mesne profit @ Rs.5000/- -- Held, once the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted, the Appellate Authority has the power to determine the mesne profit -- Once the petitioner continues to be in possession, he is required to compensate the Landlord -- Petitioner cannot be permitted to avoid payment of mesne profit only on the ground that there was lockdown due to outbreak of Covid-19.

(Para 2-6)

A. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13, 14 -- SARFAESI proceedings – Tenant’s right -- Application by tenant restraining Bank to take possession -- Rejected by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate – Appeal against -- Serious doubt as to the bona fide of the tenant -- Documents produced in support of his claim are xerox copies of the rent receipts which is after the date of creation of the mortgage -- Borrowers have not claimed that any tenant is staying at the Secured Asset -- At the time of grant of facility, third-party valuers had also confirmed that the Borrowers were staying at the Secured Asset – Tenancy is not supported by any registered instrument -- Appellant is a “tenant-in-sufferance”, therefore, he is not entitled to any protection of the Rent Act – No merit in appeal, dismissed.

(Para 14)

B. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13, 14 -- SARFAESI proceedings – Tenant’s right -- If the tenancy has been claimed to be renewed in terms of Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, the Borrower would be required to seek consent of the secured creditor for transfer of the Secured Asset by way of sale, lease or otherwise, after issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

(Para 14)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 10 – Delay in written statement -- Court has the power and jurisdiction to accept written statement beyond the period of 90 days in appropriate cases -- Petition was listed for 23.08.2018 was adjourned on 21.08.2018 for 28.09.2018 as the presiding officer was availing casual leave -- Written statement was clearly ready on the said date -- Landlord has yet to lead evidence – Petitioner/tenant shall suffer irreparable loss and manifest injustice, in case, he is not permitted to file written statement and his defence is struck of -- Written statement of the petitioner should be taken on record.

(Para 13-15)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Interim orders/directions/ protection – Extension of -- All the interim orders/directions issued or protection granted including any order requiring any compliance by the parties to such proceedings, passed by High Court or any other Court subordinate to it or any Family Court or Labour Court or any Tribunal or any other Judicial or Quasi-Judicial forum, over which High Court has power of superintendence, which are subsisting today shall stand extended till 30th June, 2021 -- If undue hardship and prejudice of any extreme nature, to any of the parties to such proceeding(s), such parties would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief by moving appropriate application(s) before the Competent Court(s), Tribunal, Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Forum.

(Para 2 (i), (xii))

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Civil Suit – Extension of time for filing written statement -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Time for filing of written-statement or return in any Suit or proceeding pending before any Civil Court or any other forum, unless specifically directed, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021 -- It is however will not preclude the parties from filing such written-statement or return before 30th June, 2021.

(Para 2 (iii))

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Execution of eviction, dispossession, demolition etc. -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Orders of eviction, dispossession, demolition, etc. passed by High Court or any Court subordinate to it or any Tribunal or Judicial or Quasi-Judicial forum, which have so far remained unexecuted, shall remain in abeyance till 30th of June 2021.

(Para 2 (iv))

D. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Interim protection -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Interim protection given in the anticipatory bail applications by the High Court or Court of Sessions for a limited period, which is likely to expire from now up to 30^th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021 -- However, any party aggrieved by the conduct of the accused on such interim protection, may move the Court over the matter for discontinuation of such interim protection, if any prejudice is caused to him/her, in which event, the Court concerned shall be entitled to take independent view of the matter.

(Para 2 (v))

E. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Interim bail -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – All the interim bails granted under Section 439, Cr.P.C. by the High Court or Courts of Sessions, limited by timeframe specifying an expiry date from now up to 30th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th June, 2021, subject to the accused not abusing such liberty or else it may be cancelled at the instance of the State or the complainant, on application with adequate proof of the abuse of the liberty so granted by the Court concerned.

(Para 2 (vi))

F. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (28 of 1988), Section 3,6 -- Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3 – Parole – Extension of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Parole granted to a person by order passed by a Court exercising the criminal jurisdiction and limited by time-frame specifying an expiry date from now up to 30th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021, subject to the accused not abusing such liberty or else it may be cancelled at the instance of the State or the complainant, on application with adequate proof of the abuse of the liberty so granted by the Court concerned.

(Para 2 (vi), (vii))

G. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41A -- Cognizable offence – Arrest in -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Unless there is necessity of arrest for maintenance of law and order or any other emergent case, in a cognizable offence prescribing sentence up to seven years imprisonment, the police shall desist from arresting the accused up to 30th of June, 2021, without complying with the provision of Section 41A, Cr.P.C. -- This however may not be understood as an interdict on the power of the police to arrest, but should only be considered a mere advisory in the face of the ongoing crisis following second wave of Coronavirus.

(Para 2(viii))

H. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Eviction/ Demolition by government/ Corporation/ Council/ Board/ Panchayat etc. – Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – State Governments, Union Territory, Chandigarh, or any of its Departments or any Municipal Corporation / Council / Board or any Gram Panchayat or any other local body or any other agency and instrumentality of the State shall not take any action for eviction and demolition in respect of any property, over which any citizen or person or party or any Body Corporate, has physical or symbolic possession as on today till 30th June, 2021.

(Para 2(ix))

I. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Auction sale by Bank/ Financial Institution -- Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Any Bank or Financial Institution shall not take action for auction in respect of any property of any citizen or person or party or any Body corporate till 30th June, 2021.

(Para 2(x))

J. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued to Government bodies in suo motu PIL – If the Government of Punjab, Haryana, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and/or any of its Departments and/or functionaries, Central Government and/or its departments or functionaries or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Public or Private Companies or any Firm or any individual or person is/are, by the order of this Court or any Court subordinate to it or the Tribunals, required to do a particular thing or carry out certain direction in a particular manner, in a time frame, which is going to expire at any time from now up to 30th June, 2021, the time for compliance of such order shall stand extended up to 30th June, 2021, unless specifically directed otherwise by the Court concerned.

(Para 2(xi))

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Rent laws -- Execution of eviction order – Appeal/ Stay application pending -- Executing Court declined to stay the execution, warrants of possession issued – It is in the interest of justice that the Appellate authority be directed to take a final decision upon the appeal filed by the petitioner; and till then eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question be stayed – Direction issued to Appellate Authority to decide appeal within 3 months, dispossession stayed till the decision of appeal.

(Para 2-5)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex-parte eviction -- Service of summons -- Service was not only effected by process server in person on the predecessor-in-interests of petitioners, but by way of munadi and affixation as well -- Munadi is known to be valid mean of substitute service in case despite service a litigant does not cause appearance before the Court – Objection taken is that there was an irregularity as the copy of petition was not served -- Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that it was well within the knowledge of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners that there was a case pending against her qua which service of summons was effected -- Even if it was not due complete service, but the fact that munadi was also effected, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to take refuge under the argument that it was a weak mode of evidence of service -- No grounds to interfere. Dismissed.

(Para 12-14)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Arrears of rent – Provisional assessment of rent – Tendering/ Non-tendering  of – Final assessment -- Effect of -- It is only on the failure of the tenant to comply with the provisional assessment of rent that an order for eviction can be passed immediately by the Rent Controller -- If the tenant makes compliance, the inquiry shall continue for finally adjudicating upon the dispute as to the arrears of rent in the light of the contending pleas raised by the landlord and the tenant before the Rent Controller -- If the final adjudication by the Rent Controller is at variance with his provisional assessment of rent then, if the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be in excess, the Rent Controller may direct a refund and, if the amount deposited by the tenant is found to be short or deficient, the Rent Controller may pass a conditional order directing the tenant to place the landlord in possession of the premises by giving a reasonable time to the tenant for paying or tendering the deficit amount failing which he shall be liable to be evicted. Rakesh Wadhawan’s case, 2002(5) SCC 440 relied.

(Para 10)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Arrears of rent -- Ejectment petition – Subsequent default in rent – Effect of -- Tenant-respondent has tendered the provisionally assessed rent -- Situation of ordering immediate eviction of the tenant-respondent has not arisen -- It is yet to be finally determined if this tender was in excess or short -- That would be done after the parties lead their respective evidences -- Enquiry by the Rent Controller is in progress and no final adjudication has been made in the main ejectment petition -- Each default by a tenant in the payment of rent gives the landlord a fresh cause of action to seek his eviction.

(Para 11)

C. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Ejectment petition – Subsequent cause of action – Interim application for eviction – Right of -- Ejectment petition pending – Interim application by the landlady-petitioner for eviction of the tenant-respondent on the grounds of non-payment of rent, damaging the suit property and for changing the nature of the suit property by raising construction dismissed by Rent Controller – Averments in the interim application regarding these grounds are of date after the filing of the main ejectment petition and thus clearly are not part of the main ejectment petition -- Rent Controller could not have ordered eviction of the tenant-respondent -- No illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 14)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- NRI landlord -- Bonafide need -- Tenant contended that the space available with the landlord would be adequate for the proposed furniture business and there is no need to seek eviction – Adequacy or otherwise of the space available with the landlord for the business in mind is not for the tenant to dictate -- Special procedure for NRI landlord was deliberately designed by the Legislature to speedily secure possession of tenanted premises for bona fide need of the NRI landlords and such legislative intent to confer the right of summary eviction, as a onetime measure cannot be frustrated, without strong reason.

(Para 11, 13)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- NRI landlord -- Bonafide need -- Senior citizen landlord – Age cannot be factored against the landlords in their proposed business.

(Para 11)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B -- NRI landlord -- Bonafide need – Earlier eviction petition – Effect of -- Present proceedings u/s 13B is the first one filed by the landlord to secure eviction and the earlier proceedings was u/s 13 of the Act -- No bar for a Non-resident Indian to get a building of choice vacated, u/s 13B of the Act.

(Para 12)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18A -- Leave to defend – Scope of -- Tenant should not be allowed to widen the scope of the limited defense u/s 13B.

(Para 14)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 116 -- Death of landlord – Petition by one of LR -- Tenant-landlord relationship -- Maintainability of ejectment petition -- It is settled principle that the tenant is no one to raise the question of title, in view of the presumption u/s 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -- Any legal heir of the original landlord is entitled to file the eviction petition.

(Para 10, 11)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need of landlord – Prima facie case -- Presumption of -- It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how he can adjust himself as to which portion of the tenanted premises he is to set up his business -- Only a prima facie case is to be taken into consideration by the Rent Controller to draw the presumption that the requirement is bona fide.

(Para 12)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Long occupation of tenanted premises – Ejectment of tenant -- Merely because the tenant is carrying business since 1995 would not entitle him to continue in the premises for all times to come.

(Para 12)

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 111, 114, 114A – Ejectment of lessee – Forfeiture for non-payment of rent -- U/s 114A of the TP Act a condition for issue of notice prior to filing suit of ejectment is provided so as to enable the lessee to remedy the breach – Held, same cannot be construed as a statutory protection nor as a hard and fast rule in all cases to waive the forfeiture -- It is a provision enabling exercise of equitable jurisdiction in appropriate cases as a matter of discretion.

(Para 15)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 111, 114, 114A – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) -- Ejectment of lessee -- Forfeiture for non-payment of rent – Arbitration jurisdiction -- If the special statutes do not apply to the premises/property and the lease/tenancy created thereunder as on the date when the cause of action arises to seek for eviction or such other relief and in such transaction if the parties are governed by an Arbitration Clause; the dispute between the parties is arbitrable and there shall be no impediment whatsoever to invoke the Arbitration Clause – It would be open for the Arbitrator to take note of Section 114, 114A of TP Act and pass appropriate award in the nature as a Court would have considered that aspect while exercising the discretion.

(Para 16, 18)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) -- Protection of Rent Control legislation – Eviction of tenants – Arbitration jurisdiction – Insofar as eviction or tenancy relating to matters governed by special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction whereunder the Court/Forum is specified and conferred jurisdiction under the statute alone can adjudicate such matters -- Hence in such cases the dispute is non-arbitrable.

(Para 17, 18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 1 -- Pleading that property was purchased in 2001 – Maintainability of suit – Rejection of plaint -- For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be taken into account -- There is no averment in the plaint, which shows that the construction was more than 10 years old with regard to the suit property so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court -- Application on presumption that as the suit property has been purchased in the year 2001, the construction must be 10 years old -- Court has to arrive at a definite conclusion that on the basis of the pleadings in the suit, the suit is not maintainable -- Interpretation of the averment in a particular manner is not permissible – High Court found no ground to interfere in dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

(Para 7-9)

Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 20 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Tenant company under liquidation proceedings – Eviction of – Remedy of -- Writ petitioner is calling upon High court to decree a suit for possession of tenanted premises in occupation of a company which is stated to be under liquidation -- Company was admittedly inducted as a tenant in the premises in dispute -- Company still exists and has not been dissolved – Held, urban tenancy in the State of Punjab, is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 -- Thus, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing a petition under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – If petitioner’s argument to the effect that the tenancy has come to an end, is accepted still the petitioner has a remedy of filing a civil suit seeking relief of possession – Writ petition disposed of by relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.

(Para 4-7)