- (1.) THE petitioner impugns the order dated 22.8.2012 (Anneuxre P -3) ordering his eviction in proceedings initiated by the respondent/landlord under the provisions of Section 13 -B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The fact that the petitioner is an NRI and is the owner of the premises for the last 5 years, is not in dispute and the only grievance of the petitioner is that leave to defend ought to have been granted to him because the respondent/landlord was required to prove his bonafide need and the petitioner had in his application demonstrated that the respondent is in possession of another premises in the vicinity where he is residing on the first floor and this should have been sufficient for the learned Rent Controller to arrive at a conclusion that the issue raised by the petitioner was a triable one.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the provisions of Section 13 -B of the Act are para -materia to those of Section 14 -D of the Delhi Rent Act and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, 2005 2 SCC 271while interpreting the provisions of the Delhi Rent Act had observed as follows : - "32. There is another aspect of the matter. Section 14 -D uses the expression "premises let out by her, or by her husband" which are required by the widow for her own residence. She may apply to the Rent Controller for recovering the immediate possession of "such premises". Such premises" obviously is relatable to the premises let out by her or by her husband. It cannot take within its ambit any other premises which may have' been let out by any other person. We, therefore, find substance in the summation urged on behalf of the appellant that Section 14 -D benefits only a class of widows viz. a widow who or whose husband had let out the premises. If the intention was to benefit all widows, the section would have provided that a widow is entitled to obtain immediate possession of the premises owned by her and the expressions "let out by her or by her husband" and "such premises" in Section 14 -D would be redundant. The High Court, therefore, fell in error in thinking that only two conditions were required to be fulfilled for the application of Section 14 -D, namely, the landlady is a widow, and the premises are required by her for her residence. In addition to these two requirements, in our view, Section 14 -D insists that the premises must be one let out by her or by her husband. A widow or her late husband who acquired a tenanted premises by sale or transfer cannot invoke the provisions of Section 14 -D to evict a pre -existing tenant."
(3.) FOR the purpose of reference, the provisions of Section 14 -D are also extracted here below : - "14 -D Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow. - (1) Where the landlord is a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband, are required by her for her own residence, she may apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises." Learned counsel for the respondent has taken this Court through the contents of the application filed by him seeking eviction of the petitioner where it has been stated that the petitioner is 61 years of age ; is in the evening of life and desirous of settling in India with his family members and though he does not deny the existence of any property in his possession where he resides on the first floor, but pleads to be a transitional measure till the time he puts up a permanent resident in the demised premises which is essentially residential in character. He has also referred to other proceedings about his being an NRI and owner of the property for the last 5 years. This aspect, however, is not in dispute at all. Learned counsel for the respondent has also produced before this Court the site plan of the demised premises which was a part of record before the learned Rent Controller and which indicates that the demised premises are encircled with the area pertaining to the respondent and no beneficial use of the property can be had without inclusion of the demised premises in the rest of the area. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as also the one which has been produced before this Court. The foremost question that is required to be decided is regarding the objection taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and his reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta .;