We have considered the submission of the learned
counsel for the parties. The tenants do not challenge the
NRI status of the landlord but they contend that the
space available with the landlord would be adequate for
the proposed furniture business and there is no need to
seek eviction of the respondents, from their respective
shops.
11. On the above aspect, it is not for the tenant to
dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed
business venture or to suggest that the available space
with the landlord will be adequate. Insofar as the
earlier eviction proceeding, the concerned vacant shops
under possession of the landlords were duly disclosed,
but the case of the landlord is that the premises/space
under their possession is insufficient for the proposed
furniture business. On the age aspect, it is seen that
the respondents are also senior citizens but that has not
affected their desire to continue their business in the
tenanted premises. Therefore, age cannot be factored
against the landlords in their proposed business.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 231-232 OF 2021
BALWANT SINGH @ BANT SINGH & ANR. Vs SUDARSHAN KUMAR & ANR.
Dated: JANUARY 27, 2021
1. Leave granted.
2. The landlords/appellants challenge the judgment dated
6.3.2020 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
whereunder the respondents/tenants were granted leave to
contest the eviction proceedings, overturning the
decision of the Rent Controller, Khanna, whereby leave to
contest was refused to the tenants.
3. The appellants are the owners of the premises and the
two shops therein for which, the eviction proceedings
were initiated against the tenants. The subject shops on
the ground floor of the building were situated in the
urban area of Khanna. The appellants are Non-Resident
Indians (NRI) within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of the
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”). They sought immediate recovery
of possession of the rented premises by invoking the
provisions of Section 13B read with Section 18A of the
Act. The landlord moved the Rent Controller claiming
that the appellant No. 1 desires to start the business of
sale, purchase and manufacture of furniture and for the
proposed business, the property already in possession of
the landlord, is insufficient. It was also indicated
that after shops in question are vacated, the building
will be renovated as per the requirement of the proposed
business.
4. On receipt of notice, the two tenants filed identical
application seeking leave to contest, as provided under
Section 18A(5) of the Act. The tenants alleged that the
appellants have failed to disclose their past litigation
with M/s Sudarshan Interior Decorators qua Rent
Application No. 6/2005 and also the other litigation with
Diwan Chand qua Rent Application No. 32/2005. As the
landlord have secured possession of the two shops through
those litigations, it was projected that the landlords
are in occupation of four shops adjoining each other and
in that available space, the furniture business can be
conveniently conducted.
5. In their reply to the pleadings of the tenants, the
appellants contended that there is no concealment of
necessary facts in the eviction petitions, inasmuch as
the concerned proceedings were decided much prior to the
institution of the present proceedings under Section 13B
of the Act. It was further stated that the shops in
possession of the landlords were disclosed but the space
is insufficient for the proposed business. Therefore,
the shop premises in occupation of the present tenants
are needed to be secured.
6. The Rent Controller considered the rival submissions
and noted that the three necessary ingredients for
initiating proceedings under Section 13B of the Act were
satisfied by the appellants. Firstly the landlord is NRI,
secondly, the landlord has returned to India; and
thirdly, the landlord has been the owner of the property
for five years. The relationship of landlord and tenant
was also found between the contesting parties. It was
further noticed that the previous eviction proceedings
against M/s. Sudarshan Interior Decorators and against
Diwan Chand was filed under Section 13 and not under
Section 13B of the Act and since they were decided much
earlier, non-disclosure of those proceedings will not
affect the merit of the present proceedings, under
Section 13B of the Act. The Rent Controller rejected the
objection of the tenants that a portion of the premises
would be sufficient for the proposed business.
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Rent Controller
refusing leave to contest, the tenants filed separate
Revision Petitions before the High Court to challenge the
orders of the Rent Controller. The High Court in the
impugned judgment had focused on the fact that the
landlord had earlier recovered possession of two
adjoining shops through proceedings initiated under
Section 13 of the Act and those shops are lying vacant.
The Court also noted that the first floor of the tenanted
premises is let out to a bank for which no eviction
petition was filed. It was accordingly held that leave
to contest should be granted to the tenants. The order
passed by the Rent Controller was then set aside and
further proceeding was directed before the Rent
Controller with grant of leave to contest to the tenants.
8. Assailing the legality of the judgment of the High
Court, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel
contends that when there is no dispute that the
appellants are covered within the meaning of “Non-
Resident Indian” under Section 2(dd) and required the
premises (under their ownership for over five years) for
business needs, the tenant cannot seek leave to contest,
inasmuch as, the right to recover immediate possession is
granted to NRI landlords under the special mechanism of
Section 13B and Section 18A of the Act. Mr. Jain refers
to the appended site map of the vacant shops to show that
it is for the landlord to assess his need and space for
the proposed business and the tenants cannot contest
eviction on their understanding of what would be adequate
for the appellant’s business. Since the vacant
possession of the other two shops is clearly indicated in
the proceedings initiated before the Rent Controller, it
is argued that there is no concealment and the High Court
should not have allowed the Revision in favour of the
tenants primarily on the ground of the said two vacant
shops.
9. Per contra Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Senior Counsel
refers to the site map (Annexure R-10), to argue that the
landlord has sufficient space available in their
possession for the proposed furniture business and
therefore, the bona fide need of the landlord is rightly
questioned by the tenants. The non-disclosure of the two
earlier eviction proceedings is also highlighted by the
learned Senior Counsel to contend that the right to
contest was rightly ordered in favour of the tenants in
the present eviction proceedings. It is next projected
that appellant No. 1 holds Canadian citizenship and
considering his age, the proposed business venture should
not be accepted as a bona fide need, of the landlords.
10. We have considered the submission of the learned
counsel for the parties. The tenants do not challenge the
NRI status of the landlord but they contend that the
space available with the landlord would be adequate for
the proposed furniture business and there is no need to
seek eviction of the respondents, from their respective
shops.
11. On the above aspect, it is not for the tenant to
dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed
business venture or to suggest that the available space
with the landlord will be adequate. Insofar as the
earlier eviction proceeding, the concerned vacant shops
under possession of the landlords were duly disclosed,
but the case of the landlord is that the premises/space
under their possession is insufficient for the proposed
furniture business. On the age aspect, it is seen that
the respondents are also senior citizens but that has not
affected their desire to continue their business in the
tenanted premises. Therefore, age cannot be factored
against the landlords in their proposed business.
12. The Rent Controller in denying right to contest to
the tenants and ordering handover of vacant possession to
the landlord had noted that the landlord had returned to
India and required the premises for his bona fide need
and accordingly, the summary proceedings under Section
13B for recovery of possession of the entire building was
found to be justified. It was also adverted that the
present proceedings under Section 13B is the first one
filed by the landlord to secure eviction and the earlier
proceedings was under Section 13 of the Act. Moreover,
there is no bar for a Non-resident Indian to get a
building of choice vacated, under Section 13B of the Act.
13. On consideration of the above aspects, the genuine
need of the appellants to secure vacant possession of the
premises for the proposed business is found to be
established. According to us, the adequacy or otherwise
of the space available with the landlord for the business
in mind is not for the tenant to dictate. The special
procedure for NRI landlord was deliberately designed by
the Legislature to speedily secure possession of tenanted
premises for bona fide need of the NRI landlords and such
legislative intent to confer the right of summary
eviction, as a one time measure cannot be frustrated,
without strong reason.
14. Having regard to the contentions raised by the
tenants to oppose the Section 13B applications, we feel
that the tenants have failed to provide adequate reason
to secure the right to contest the summary proceedings
and they should not be allowed to widen the scope of the
limited defense under Section 13B. To fulfil their bona
fide requirement, the landlords have availed only one
opportunity under the summary procedure of Section 13B
and their business requirement is not seriously contested
by the tenants. Moreover, the required safeguard measures
to prevent misuse of the special provisions are also
found to be satisfied and that is why the leave to
contest was denied to the tenants.
15. In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in
setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court and say that the tenants have failed to make out
any case to contest the applications of the NRI
landlords.
16. The Rent Controller as far back as on 13.2.2009, had
allowed three months’ time to the tenants to vacate and
handover possession of the concerned premises but the
landlords are yet to secure possession. Be that as it
may, since the premises are commercial in nature, subject
to all rental obligation, we feel that the respondents be
allowed time until 31.12.2021 to handover vacant physical
possession of the premises. It is ordered accordingly.
This is subject to filing of the usual undertaking before
this Court, within three weeks from today.
17. The appeals are accordingly allowed without any order
on cost.
………………………………………………J.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
………………………………………………J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
………………………………………………J.
[HRISHIKESH ROY]
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 27, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment