LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-147

SOHAN LAL Vs. SWARAN KAUR

Decided On May 29, 2003
SOHAN LAL Appellant
V/S
SWARAN KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1193 of 2003, 6202 and 5698 of 2002 because in all the three petitions, interpretation of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') as added by amendment dated 26.3.2001 is involved. The newly inserted Section 13-B of the Act confers a right on a Non-Resident Indian (for brevity, 'NRI') - owner of the property to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building and/or non-residential building rented out to a tenant. FACTS :

(2.) TO put the whole controversy in its proper perspective the facts are referred from Civil Revision No. 5698 of 2002. There the landlord-respondent invoked the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act and filed Petition No. 4 of 4.5.2002 by making averments that the tenant- petitioner was bound to surrender immediate possession of the demised shop to him. The landlord-respondent was born in Delhi on 6.1.1973. Later on he immigrated to United Kingdom for employment and is settled there. He holds a Canadian passport and working in England. It is claimed that under Section 13-B of the Act, he is an NRI. It is claimed that with a view to set up a business of transport and goods carrier he has returned to India and that he has acquired sufficient experience abroad in that area.

(3.) ON 7.9.2002 the tenant-petitioner filed application before the Rent Controller alleging that the landlord-respondent left India after filing ejectment application which, according to him, proved the fact that he has no plans to do business in the demised premises. It was requested that he may be called to appear in the Court to produce his passport and visa. However, averments made in the application were controverted by the landlord-respondent and he filed a reply stating that nature of his work required him to frequently visit United Kingdom. A photostat copy of the passport with Visa was also produced. The landlord-respondent personally appeared before the Court and the application made by the tenant-petitioner was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.