The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, filed by an NRI cannot be dismissed as not maintainable merely because an earlier petition was withdrawn without formal permission under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Advertisement
In a significant ruling, Justice Pankaj Jain further clarified that a composite eviction petition against multiple tenants occupying different parts of the same building is legally maintainable, so long as the claim pertains to one building alone.
The ruling came in a case where a landlady of Indian origin settled in England — qualifying as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) — approached the Rent Controller seeking eviction of two tenants from a property in East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar. The landlady had earlier filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, but chose to withdraw it at the stage of final arguments following the promulgation of Section 13-B, which provides for a summary procedure for NRIs to seek eviction on grounds of personal necessity.
One of the primary objections raised by the tenants' counsel was that the second eviction petition was barred under Order XXIII since liberty was not sought at the time of withdrawing the earlier petition.
Rejecting the contention, Justice Jain ruled: “Order XXIII cannot be invoked to non-suit the landlady from maintaining the present petition. Apart from the series of precedents, a valid reasoning has been accorded by the landlady in the eviction petition itself.”
Justice Jain noted that the earlier petition under Section 13 was withdrawn in light of the subsequent insertion of Section 13-B, which provided a special remedy to NRI landlords. “The reliance placed on Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC is misconceived and cannot be accepted,” Justice Jain asserted. On the second legal issue — whether a single petition against multiple tenants occupying different portions of the same building was maintainable — Justice Jain held that the bar under Section 13-B was on the number of buildings and not the number of tenants.
“The right under Section 13-B can be exercised by the NRI landlord once during his lifetime. Section 2(a) of the Act makes it clear that the definition of ‘building’ includes ‘part of a building’. Thus, a petition can be maintained qua the ‘building’ or ‘part of the building’,” the court observed.
Justice Jain categorically stated that the law did not restrict the number of tenants against whom eviction could be sought if the claim relates to a single building. “The landlady can claim eviction of more than one tenant so long as it is confined to one building. The eviction of both the tenants who are occupying different parts of the same building is being sought on the common grounds — i.e., need of the landlady,” the judgment said.
Justice Jain further added that the questions of fact and law would have remained the same, even if separate petitions had been filed. “Thus, the plea raised with respect to composite petition being not maintainable sans merit and the same deserves to be rejected,” the Bench ruled.
Another argument raised was that the landlady had sought eviction for residential purposes, even though the property had been let out for non-residential use. Dismissing this as untenable, Justice Jain noted: “The landlady sought ejectment pleading residential as well as non-residential need. Even otherwise, there is nothing in law that bars her from utilising part of the property for residential purpose.”
Justice Jain also noted the Court could take judicial notice of the fact that the premises — a large plot with constructed area and a shed — could accommodate mixed usage. However, the issue need not be examined in detail, as eviction had also been sought for non-residential requirement.
The landlady, an NRI, had returned to India and claimed the premises for her own use and that of her husband, a retired engineer with expertise in running a lathe machine workshop. Justice Jain dismissed the revision petition filed by the tenants challenging the maintainability of the eviction plea.
English (US) ·