NRI Landlord

Punjab Rent Act -- Amendment in pleadings -- Tenant has not averred in the application for amendment as to when he came to know about the fact which he wanted to incorporate in his application under Section 18-A of the Act -- In the absence of the material particulars about the time when the petitioner allegedly came to know about the alleged subsequent event -- Amendment is wholly frivolous and has been rightly declined by the Rent Controller. Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann, 2011(1) L.A.R. 620 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Bonafide need – Presumption of -- Onus of proof -- Court shall presume that the landlord’s need as pleaded in the petition, is genuine and bona fide -- However, the tenant would be entitled to prove that in fact, in law, the requirement of the landlord is not genuine -- A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Landlord was in service in Kuwait and he stood retired from service and thereafter, he visited India 2-3 times and then again went to Canada and was staying there with his family – Landlord is an NRI. Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Leave to defend – Limitation – Condonation of delay – Tenant is required to appear before the Controller and apply for leave to contest the same within 15 days of service of the summons -- Rent Controller being a creature of statute can only act in terms of the powers vested in him by statute and cannot, therefore, entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay since the statute does not vest him with such power. Om Prakash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi, 2011(1) L.A.R. 109 (SC).

Punjab Rent Act -- Leave to defend – Onus of proof -- Landlord had denied the documents and once it is denied, it is for the tenant to prove his case and he cannot force him to admit the case set up by him. Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann, 2011(1) L.A.R. 620 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Number of shops in building – Right of landlord – Contention that recourse could had to the provisions of Section 13-B only once which would support the theory that each shop room or other premises in the building would have to be treated as a separate unit and the landlord would be entitled to make a choice as to which of the units he wished to take possession of immediately, since the landlord had already obtained possession of a portion of the building, it must be deemed that he had exhausted his option as given under Section 13-B and in order to evict the other tenants from the premises in question, he would have to file regular eviction petitions before the Rent Controller concerned, who would have to deal with the same in the regular manner without resorting to the emergency provisions of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act – Contention repelled. Swami Nath v. Nirmal Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 425 (SC).

Punjab Rent Act -- Pendency of eviction petition u/s 13 – Eviction petition u/s 13-B – Maintainability of -- Rights granted to the N.R.I. landlord under Section 13-B of the Act are special rights to get vacant possession at the earliest -- These special rights are independent to any other right given under Section 13 of the Act -- Hence, rights given under Section 13-B of the Act cannot be curtailed merely because, landlord has filed previous petition under Section 13 of the Act. N.R.I. landlord can exercise his right under Section 13-B of the Act even during the pendency of earlier petition under Section 13 of the Act. Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Return to India – Meaning of -- If an NRI returns to India on or before the enactment of Section 13-B, he is entitled to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the Act -- It is not at all necessity that an NRI should return to India only after the enactment of Section 13-B. Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act – Speaking order -- Rent Controller is expected to pass a reasoned order after taking into account all the submissions made by both the sides – Document submitted by the tenant has not been considered at all by the Rent Controller -- Revision petition allowed and the matter remanded back to the learned Rent Controller to decide it afresh by taking into account the evidence led by both the parties. Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann, 2011(1) L.A.R. 620 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Summons to tenant – Service of -- Summons has to be issued in terms of Order 5 of CPC and in addition thereto, by registered post and by affixing another copy of the summons on the conspicuous part of the building in dispute – Rent Controller has to follow all the three methods -- No such procedure, as directed under Section 18-A (3) (a) and (b) has been followed by the learned Rent Controller, who has simply relied upon the report of refusal without recording anything as to service upon the tenant by way of registered post or by way of affixation by Process Server in case of refusal, nor given any chance to verify the question of refusal on the part of the tenant -- Held, finding of the learned Rent Controller in this regard is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained to hold that service upon the tenant was validly effected. Harwinder Pal Kaur and another v. Kuldeep Singh Gurm @ Kuldeep Singh and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 401 (P&H).