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)

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

(Para 3,4)

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

(Para 4)

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

--       Rent deed does not reserve yearly rent

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

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

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

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

(Para 13-19)

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

(Para 20)

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

(Para 8-11)

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

(Para 18)

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

(Para 19)

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

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

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

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

(Para 19-28)

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

(Para 11)

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

(Para 3, 19-22)

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

(Para 9)

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

(Para 7-18)

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

(Para 17)

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

(Para 18, 19)

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

(Para 22)

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

(Para 9)

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

(Para 12)

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

(Para 4-8)