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

(Para  2-6)

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

(Para 6-8)

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

(Para 6)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 7, 11)

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

(Para 10)

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

(Para 8, 9)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant – Arrears of rent -- Assessment of provisional rent – Extension of time – Death of tenant’s wife – Ground of -- Law is required to be interpreted in a manner which advances the cause of justice -- It cannot be interpreted in a manner which results in defeating it – Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent on 28.09.2022 and adjourned the case to 04.11.2022 permitting the tenant to pay the provisional rent -- Petitioner lost his wife on the intervening night of 04/05.11.2022 -- Revision petition allowed, impugned order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller affirmed by Appellate Authority set aside.

(Para 2-7)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 7,  8)

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

(Para 10, 11)

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

(Para 12)

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

(Para 9)

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

(Para 11-14)

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

(Para 5, 6)

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

(Para 6-10)

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

(Para 1, 11)

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

(Para 8)

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

(Para 10)

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

(Para 12)

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

(Para 1, 5, 6)

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

(Para 8)

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

(Para 9-11)

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

(Para 11-13)

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

(Para 1, 4)

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

(Para 11, 16)

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

(Para 1, 6, 9)

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

(Para 16-22)

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

(Para 1, 11)

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

(Para 6)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 12-14)

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

(Para 11.3)

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

(Para 17-19)

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

(Para 18)

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

(Para 8-10, 13)

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

(Para 12, 13)

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

(Para 10)

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

(Para 1, 3, 13.2-16)

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

(Para 14)

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

(Para 5)

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

(Para 2, 16, 17)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 1-5)

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

(Para 13-20)

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

(Para 16)

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

(Para 13)

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

(Para 14)

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

(Para 1, 16, 17)

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

(Para 1, 5)

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

(Para 5-11)

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

(Para 7-10)

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)