Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19961 = 2025(2) L.A.R. 79 = 2025 :PHHC: 31072
Decided on: 05.03.2025
Present:
Mr. Rajesh Garg, Sr. Advocate with, Mr. Varinder Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for respondents.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B – NRI landlord – Return back to India -- Eviction of petitioner/ tenant in the year 2010 -- 15 years have passed in this process -- Petitioners’ application for leave to defend was dismissed in the year 2016 -- Revision petition is pending for the last 9 years – Admittedly, eviction against remaining tenants possessing the ground floor of the same premises has become final and the possession has been handed over to the landlords – Section 13B of the ‘1949 Act’ does not provide that the landlord will return back to the Country before filing of the petition – Landlords had only filed petitions for claiming higher rent, that would not stop the landlords to seek eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity – Revision of tenant dismissed.
(Para 5)
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The petitioners herein are tenants, who have been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller. The landlords filed petition under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short ‘1949 Act’), seeking immediate possession of the tenanted premises in the year 2010. 15 years have passed in this process. The petitioners’ application for leave to defend was dismissed in the year 2016. This revision petition is pending for the last 9 years.
2. It is admitted position on the record that eviction against remaining tenants possessing the ground floor of the same premises has become final and the possession has been handed over to the landlords.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the landlords have not returned back to the Country and previously they were filing petitions for increase of rent.
4. Section 13B of the ‘1949 Act’ does not provide that the landlord will return back to the Country before filing of the petition. His intention can be gathered from the circumstances.
5. With regard to second argument, It may be noted that the landlords had only filed petitions for claiming higher rent, however, there was no provision in the Act. That would not estop the landlords to seek eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity.
6. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
7. Dismissed accordingly.
8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Petition dismissed.
********