Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16629 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 279
Decided on: 15.03.2022
Alongwith
CR-1977-2018 (O&M), Inderjit v. Manjit Singh,
CR-1978-2018 (O&M), Jaswinder Singh v. Manjit Singh
And
CR-2715-2018 (O&M), Kamaljit Singh v. Manjit Singh
Present:
Mr. Manu K Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner in CR-1974,1977 and 1978 of 2018
Mr. G.S.Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner in CR-2715-2018
Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the respondent
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)
Cases referred:
2. Satish Aggarwal vs. Davinder Kumar, 2020 (2) RCR (Rent) 479.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. By this order, four civil revision petitions i.e CR-1974, 1977, 1978 and 2715 of 2018 shall stand disposed of.
2. Learned counsel representing the respective parties are ad idem that these revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order.
3. The petitioners in all the four revision petitions are the tenants. They have been ordered to be evicted by the learned Rent Controller while allowing the petitions filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to 'the 1949 Act'). Section 13-B of the 1949 Act enables a Non Resident Indian to take immediate possession of the tenanted property. The eviction petition was filed in the year 2012.
4. These revision petitions were kept pending in order to await the decision of the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Krishan Grover and others vs. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No.8597-2019) decided on 14.11.2019 = (2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14949 = 2019 (1) L.A.R. 569.
5. Learned counsel representing the petitioners admit that the aforesaid judgment is against the petitioners, even then they have been permitted to address the Court on merits. They contend that the respondent while filing the eviction petition did not disclose the property specified in para 12 of the affidavit. It is not in dispute that the respondent-landlord has disclosed the aforesaid property in his own affidavit. Hence, there is no intentional concealment of material facts disentitling him from the order of eviction.
6. The next argument of the learned counsel representing the petitioners is that the respondent has not come back from Italy.
7. On reading of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, it is evident that the landlord is not required to return to India to file an eviction petition. The aforesaid matter is no longer res integra. Reliance in this regard can be made to judgment rendered in Satish Aggarwal vs. Davinder Kumar 2020 (2) RCR (Rent) 479.
8. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
9. Dismissed.
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Petitions dismissed.
********