SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) PETITIONER Jasbir Kaur Sandhu alias Jasbero Kaur, who is a Non-Resident Indian, has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for setting aside the Order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara, whereby the respondent-tenant has been granted leave to contest the ejectment application filed by the petitioner under Section 13-B of the Act.
(2.) IN this case, the premises in question, which is a residential building, was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1992 vide registered sale deed dated 5.11.1992. The said premises is under the tenancy of the respondent at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The petitioner sought ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question under Section 13-B of the Act. In the petition, it has been stated that the petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian and requires the demised premises for her personal use and occupation as she has no other residential house/building except the one in dispute in the area of Municipal Committee, Phagwara. It has been further stated that she intends to settle in India. It has also been stated that the petitioner is a widow and is having two adult children and she wants to perform their marriage in her native place. The respondent-tenant filed an application for grant of leave to contest the aforesaid petition. In the application, he has taken the following grounds : (i) That the petitioner landlady has not filed the present petition with bona fide intention; (ii) That she or her family members do not require the demised premises for their personal use and occupation; (iii) That she wants ejectment of the respondent tenant from the demised premises with object to sell the property and get lucrative amount and then go back to foreign country where she is settled permanently; (iv) That she is a Non Resident Indian having foreign nationality and citizenship, therefore, she cannot come back to India without getting visa and they cannot live permanently, in India beyond the period of visa. (v) That she is having a residential house at Model Town, Phagwara, and there are many other properties in her occupation; (vi) That she is not owner of the demised premises; (vii) That she has already filed ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the respondent, which is still pending; and (viii) That she is not a Non Resident Indian as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that in the application only the aforesaid grounds have been stated but no material or documents establishing the aforesaid alleged facts, were annexed with the application.
(3.) THE Rent Controller after hearing the counsel for both the parties and perusing the material placed by them, granted leave to the respondent tenant to contest the ejectment petition while observing as under : "Petitioner also has relied upon pronouncement 2003(2) R.C.R. 407 (P&H) in which our own Hon'ble High Court has laid down the requirement pre-requisite for a petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act and while relying upon this petition it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that required ingredients are available in the current petition and, therefore, respondent has no legs to stand and, therefore, application under consideration be declined. On the other hand respondent has relied upon a pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court cited as 2001(1) R.C.R. 33 (S.C.) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has envisaged and has held in its wisdom that believing on assertions of parties in the affidavits containing assertions and counter assertions may not afford safe and acceptable evidence to arrive at an affirmative conclusion unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence available to show that facts disclosed in the application of respondent/tenant for leave to defend were unreasonable or untenable as are the facts in the current petition and petitioner is a N.R.I. permanently settled abroad having her family also. She intends to settle down in India permanently. Respondent has also claimed that petitioner also has filed another petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act, 1949 against him qua same property. These circumstances, therefore, require evidence before Court can reach to a conclusion about bona fide and genuine ground of petitioner as claimed in the petition. The photo copy of referred rent note furnished on file by respondent shows that name of owner of demised premises given in it is one Ajit Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh. Petitioner has failed to controvert this aspect. Therefore, it would require evidence before petitioner can prove on record that she is owner/landlord of the demised premises. These circumstances, therefore, require that application under consideration be allowed and respondent be permitted to contest the petition to help in reaching to a just conclusion. Resultantly this application is allowed." ;