M.M. Aggarwal, J.
Re: C.R. No. 4545 of 20051. This is petition filed by Ajit Singh tenant against order of Rent Controller Amritsar dated 16.8.2005 whereby application of the tenant u/s 18-A(4) and (5) of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act'') for permission to leave to defend was dismissed and petition of landlord-respondent Amarjit Singh u/s 13-B of the Act was allowed in respect of shop No. 11, situated on the ground floor of building bearing No. 103, built on Khasra No. 1116, Bhullar Market, Lawrence Road, Amritsar.
Ref. Re. C.R. No. 3444 of 2006.
2. This is petition filed by Vinod Kumar tenant against order dated 24.5.2006 of Rent Controller Amritsar whereby application of the tenant u/s 18-A(4) and (5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for permission to leave to defend was dismissed and petition of landlord-resident Amarjit Singh u/s 13-B of the Act was allowed in respect of shop No. 10, situated on the ground floor of building bearing No. 103, built on Khasra No. 1116, Bhullar Market, Lawrence Road, Amritsar.
Re: CR No. 2393 of 2006.
3. This is petition filed by Amarjit Singh landlord against order dated 2nd January, 2006 of Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby application u/s 18-A(4) and (5) of the Act filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. - Respondent No. 1/ tenant was allowed in respect of entire first floor and two rooms and two bath rooms on the second floor and tenant-Insurance Company was given permission to contest.
4. Amarjit Singh, who claims himself to be owner landlord, had filed the above said petitions u/s 13-B of the Act for ejectment of the tenants from different portions of same building in their respective possession. Amarjit Singh had claimed that he is Non Resident Indian living in Indonesia. He has come to India. He is co-owner of the property in dispute. That building is required for his use and tenants were liable to ejectment.
5. It had come out that whole property had been purchased by Amarjit Singh and three others on 20.1.1969. The other co-owners were Balbir Singh, Harcharan Singh and Raj Harbans Kaur. Harcharan Singh is father of Amarjit Singh. Harcharan Singh had died on 11.4.1994 and by virtue of will, his share had gone to Napinder Singh and jatinderpal Singh, respondents No. 3 and 4 of Civil Revision No. 4545 of 2005. Balbir Singh had died on 6.9.1993. His share had gone to respondents 2 and 3 i.e. Kanwaljit Kaur and Napinder Singh in Civil Revision No. 4545 of 2005. Raj Harbans Kaur had died on 24.10.2000 and her share had gone to Napinder Singh and Jatinderpal Singh.
6. It was argued by counsel for the tenants that petition had been filed in the year 2004. 5 years period has not passed when share of Raj Harbans Kaur who had died on 24.10.2000 had devolved upon respondents No. 3 and 4, and it could not be said that Amarjit Singh was owner for the last more than five years. This contention is untenable as petitioner was co-owner of the property in dispute since 20.1.1979 by purchase and as per the settled law, even a co-owner if he is N.R.I., can maintain the petition u/s 13-B of the Act.
7. Hon''ble Supreme Court in case
8. It had been held that tenant would be entitled to leave to contest only if he makes a strong case to challenge those grounds and is able to show (1) Landlord is not NRI landlord (2) Landlord is not owner of premises (3) Landlord is not owner for last five years before institution of proceedings and (4) Landlord''s requirement is not bona fide and is a pretext to get accommodation vacated.
9. On behalf of the petitioners-tenant it was argued that Amarjit Singh has already sufficient accommodation in the same building consisting of numerous shops and big hall, whereas he is owner of another property, which is situated at Maqbool Road, Amritsar. It was argued that Amarjit Singh had filed as many as 6 petitions against different tenants of this building. He could eject only one of the tenants and not all. It was argued that ejectment petitions filed by the landlord were not bona fide and it was just a pretext to get tenancy premises vacated. That the landlord had already entered into some agreement with property dealer to sell the property in dispute.
10. In the application u/s 18-A for leave to defend Ajit Singh tenant had pleaded that landlord was possessed of massive non-residential building at Maqbool Road, Amritsar besides portions of building No. 103 at Lawrence Road, Amritsar in his possession.
11. Landlord Amarjit Singh, while filing reply to the application u/s 18-A of the Act, had stated that some portion of the ground floor was in occupation of landlord himself. Four shops were also in possession of the landlord. It was pleaded that accommodation available was insufficient for his need. Landlord required entire building for constructing a Plaza and Shopping Complex along the with open space. He had admitted that he was occupying three halls on the second floor, but 4th floor was with some other tenant which had not been vacated.
12. It came out that Amarjit Singh landlord had filed ejectment petitions against different tenants u/s 13-B of the Act in respect of different portion of the building, which were in possession of those respective tenants and there may be six such petitions.
13. One of the petitions filed was against The National Insurance Company. In that petition, leave to contest had been given vide order dated 2.1.2006 of the Rent Controller Amritsar because there was a notice, copy Annexure -P6, on behalf of landlord to the tenant i.e. The National Insurance Company Limited which was interpreted to show a desire of the landlord to enhance rent and therefore, his need was found to be not genuine. Against the order Civil Revisions No. 2393 of 2006 filed by Amarjit Singh is pending. At the time of hearing, it came out that since leave to contest had been given against tenant National Insurance Company, evidence of the parties had started and some evidence had been recorded.
14. Counsel for the petitioner landlord in this petition No. 2393 of 2006 had argued that from the notice, it cannot at all be interpreted that intention was to enhance rent. In fact lease period stood expired on 1.6.2002 and the notice was that the landlord did not want to keep the tenant as lessee in the aforesaid tenanted premises and occupation of the tenant was unlawful and the tenant was thereafter liable to pay compensation for use and occupation of the premises to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq. feet, after the expiry of the period of lease.
15. Mr. Nirmal Mittal, Advocate for Insurance Company had argued that there was evidence of proposal for enhancement of rent. He placed reliance on document Annexure P-6 but on behalf of petitioner landlord, it was argued that it was inter se negotiation between different officers of the National Insurance Company and the landlord was not party nor was bound by it.
16. Since the evidence had started in the Court of Rent Controller in the petition filed by Amarjit Singh as against National Insurance Company, Amarjit Singh appears to have been examined there. He had tendered his Affidavit as evidence in the examination in chief, whereas during cross- examination, he had admitted the proposal for enhancement of rent and had stated that there was a copy of proposal Exhibit R-I with him. In further cross-examination conducted on 1.12.2006, he had stated that requisite negotiation with the National Insurance Company regarding rent as well as proposal regarding enhancement of rent was started by Shri Vipan Sharma as per his instructions on telephone. This Vipan Sharma happens to be attorney of Amarjit Singh in the petition before Rent Controller and also in the present petition filed in this Court.
17. Exhibit R-1 shows that although it was an inter departmental proposal for enhancement of rent at the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq. feet but it is written that landlord was demanding that and negotiation could be there and landlord should be called for negotiation, which will prima facie show that the landlord was interested in increasing rent and not getting the premises in possession of the Insurance Company as tenant, vacated.
18. There are many tenants in same building. It may be that NRI landlord can file more than one ejectment petition against various tenants of the same building but when the grounds for ejectment is to get the entire building vacated from tenants for constructing a Plaza, cannot straight away be called genuine.
19. As such, there are good grounds to grant the tenants leave to defend.
20. Under these circumstances, revision petition Nos. 4545 of 2005 and 3444 of 2006 filed by the tenants are accepted. Orders declining leave to defend are set aside. Revision Petition No. 2393 of 2006 filed by landlord Amarjit Singh is dismissed.
21. Since present order is in respect of the three petitions pertaining to the same building, it will be appropriate that these three petitions are tired by one Court of Rent Controller. The District Judge Amritsar shall transfer all the three petitions to the Court of one Rent Controller and also take steps to transfer any other petition filed by the present NRI landlord in respect of the same building against any other tenant also to that Court. That Rent Controller shall take steps to dispose of the petitions as early as possible as per the provisions of Section 18(6) of the Act.
22. Any observation made while disposing of these petitions shall not mean expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.
