RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) ROMESH Kumar Deora, a NRI, belonging to District Faridkot and presently resident of United States of America (USA), filed a rent petition under Section 13-B read with Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, "the Act") through his power of attorney holder Shri Arun Kumar.
(2.) THE petitioner stated to be a tenant in the shop owned by the respondent from where his eviction was sought through the rent petition. The petitioner when put to notice, sought leave to defend the petition on the ground that certain valuable rights of the petitioner are to be determined by way of evidence besides pleading that the premises were not required for personal use or starting a business by the respondent, as alleged. A ground of non-payment of rent was also urged, which, however, was not pressed. The Rent Controller, after considering rival contentions and after referring to number of judgments, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, seeking leave to defend and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. The said order is under challenge in the present revision petition. It is pleaded before the Rent Controller that the respondent required the property for his personal use and for starting his business, which allegations were supported by an affidavit. The Rent Controller noticed that there was no positive plea, refuting the said allegations. The submission made by the petitioner is that landlord had not yet returned to India and otherwise was not covered by the definition of "NRI" as given in Section 2(d) of the Act. The Rent Controller, after referring few of the judgments, viewed that there was no requirement for the NRI landlord to permanently settle in India and as such, leave to contest could not be granted on the grounds as were pleaded. Besides, it was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this petition has been filed through a power of attorney holder and not by the respondent-NRI himself. The Rent Controller, however, found that it is well within the power of power of attorney holder to file a petition under Section 13-B of the Act. Reference is made to the case of Bhimappa and Others v. Allisab and others, 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 660 : 2006(2) RCR(Rent) 174 (Karnataka) to say that attorney holder can appear on behalf of the principal and he is a competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act. In this case, it is further held that the plaintiff need not step into the witness box and can prove his case through the evidence of attorney holder, yet it may not be possible to say that the attorney is a competent witness on every aspect on behalf of the principal.
(3.) MR . A.K. Chopra, learned senior counsel, would refer to the definition of NRI, as given in Section 2(dd), which means a person of Indian origin, who is either permanently or temporarily settled outside India. He would then refers to the contents of Section 13-B of the Act, which provides that where an owner is a NRI and returns to India and the residential building or a scheduled building etc. let out by him or her is required for his or her use, then he/she may apply to the Controller for immediate possession of such building. The contention of the learned Senior counsel appears to be that for the purpose of Section 13-B of the Act, NRI must return to India and then should claim that he requires the building for his use. It may, however, be true, as noticed in some of the judgments relied upon by the Rent Controller that there is no requirement that he should also claim that he intends to settle down in India permanently.;