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)

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)