AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.—This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana dismissing his application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the application for leave to contest.
The respondent-landlady/Non-Resident-lndian has filed an eviction petition u/s 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') against the petitioner-tenant in respect of the residential premises situated at Khurd Mohalla, Old Civil Hospital Road-B-X-796 (old) B-XI-1827 (new), Ludhiana.
On receipt of notice in the said eviction petition, the petitioner-tenant has moved an application for leave to contest on 02.01.2009, inter-alia, alleging that "it is pertinent to mention here that she even has contacted some Property Dealers of the area who in the first week of November, 2008 visited the tenanted premises and offered to purchase the premises only after it is vacated and the petitioner/respondent has mala fide intentions to get the premises vacated for the purpose of sale." The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment in the application for leave to contest, to elaborate the aforestated plea by incorporating that the respondent-landlady meanwhile has approached some Commission Agent/Property Dealer for the sale of the house in dispute and that Property Dealer Mr.Sarabjit Singh has sworn in an affidavit to this effect. The said amendment application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide the impugned order dated 26.08.2009 giving rise to this revision petition.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner at some length.
In my considered view, the application moved by the petitioner-tenant for amendment of the application for ''leave to contest'' lacks bona fide and seems to be founded upon a concocted story. The petitioner has already questioned the bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlady in respect of the demised premises. Suffice it to say that the legislature has taken care of the so called apprehension expressed by the petitioner-tenant that the landlady wants to sell the house after getting it vacated. Section 19(2)(B) of the Act reads as under:
Penalties:
xx xx xx
(2-B) The owner, who is a Non-resident Indian and who having evicted a tenant from a residential building or a scheduled building and/or non-residential building in pursuance of an order made u/s 13B does not occupy it for a continuous period of three months from the date of such eviction, or lets out the whole or any part of such building from which the tenant was evicted to any person, other than the tenant in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 13B, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months or with fine while may be extended to one thousand rupees or both
It would be seen that if a ''NRI''-landlady obtain the eviction order and does not occupy it continuously for 3 months from the date of eviction order or lets out the same in contravention of the provisions, the statute provides penal consequences that includes imprisonment upto 6 months besides fine.
In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the petitioner by making a toll claim that the respondent-landlady intends to sell the house, is wholly pre-mature and baseless, especially when she, on oath, has denied contacting any property dealer.
The decisions relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in (i) Jai Singh v. Man Singh & Ors., 2008(3) CCC 565 (P&H) : 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 120; (ii) Arjan Singh v. Bachan Singh & Ors., 2008 (2) CCC 361 (P&H) : 2008 (I) RCR (Civil) 712; (iii) Sat Pal v. Om Parkash, 2007 (2) CCC 309 (P&H) : 2007(2) IAR 215, and (iv) North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Dass (D) by LRs. 2008 (3) CCC 226 (S.C.); 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 165, are totally distinguishable on facts.
There is, thus, no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Since the respondent-landlady, according to the petitioner himself, is about 80 years old, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, is directed to decide the application for leave to contest before 31.10.2009 by giving top priorities to this petition by day to day hearings. Dasti.