RAJINDER KAUR Vs. GURDEV SINGH DHILLON
LAWS(P&H)-2011-4-106
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 21,2011

RAJINDER KAUR Appellant
VERSUS
Gurdev Singh Dhillon Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of three Civil Revisions namely, CR No. 8163, 8164 & 8167 of 2010, which have been filed by different tenants against the same NRI landlord, whose applications filed under Section 18 -A(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) for seeking leave to defend the petition filed under Section 13B of the Act have been dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner(s) has raised two arguments namely, (i) that the NRI landlord has not disclosed the business which is sought to be carried out by him in the demised premises, (ii) that the petitions have been filed through Special Power of Attorney who cannot depose a fact which is in the knowledge of the donor of the attorney. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in C.R. No. 1171 of 2008 titled as "Ramji Dass v. Krishan Lal Mahmotra" decided on 22.11.2010 and a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Man Kaur (dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha," 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 189 : 2011(1) 161 P.L.R. 744 (S.C.). In reply to the first argument, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that it is not necessary for the landlord to disclose the business which is to be conducted in the demised premises after its vacation because all that is required is that he required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of "Khushal Chand v. Jaspal Singh" 2009 (1) RCR (Rent) 187 : 2009(2) 154 P.L.R. 260. In reply to the second argument, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in C.R. No. 1493 of 2010 titled as "Anwar Ali v. Gian Kaur" decided on 9.11.2010, the landlord is not supposed to prove anything after the dismissal of the application filed under Section 18 -A of the Act as eviction order would follow ultimately.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.