Sat Pal vs Gurmit Singh And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2217 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
112

                                                        CR-1732-2019(O&M)
                                                     Date of Order: 29.03.2022

SAT PAL                                               ..Petitioner

                                     Versus

GURMIT SINGH AND ORS                                  ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Akhil Kashyap, Advocate for Mr. Parveen K. Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navjot Singh Wahniwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

The petitioner is a tenant. He has been ordered to be evicted by

the Rent Controller in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab

Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1949 Act").

Some facts are required to be noticed.

The respondent Gurmit Singh claiming to be a Non-resident

Indian (hereinafter referred to as "the NRI"), filed petition under Section 13-

B of the 1949 Act. Section 13-B of the 1949 Act enables NRI landlords to

get immediate possession of the tenanted premises on the ground of bona

fide necessity. The petition was filed through an attorney. It was asserted

that the NRI landlord wishes to come back to settle in India. On notice, the

petitioner appeared and sought leave to contest which was granted by the

Rent Controller. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to lead evidence

after framing of the issues and the Rent Controller ordered his ejectment

vide order dated 22.10.2018. The aforesaid order has been assailed in the

present petition.

                                       1 of 3

 CR-1732-2019(O&M)                                                -2-

The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that

the Rent Controller erred in failing to frame issue with regard to the question

as to whether Gurmit Singh is an NRI or not? He while relying upn the

judgment in Dwarka Dass Vs. Surjit Kaur, Civil Revision No.2412 of 2015,

decided on 05.07.2018, submits that the judgment passed by the Rent

Controller is liable to be set aside and the case deserves to be remitted back

to the Rent Controller for re-decision after framing the issue. He further

contends that the petitioner was never summoned in accordance with Section

18-A of the 1949 Act.

Per contra, the learned counsel representing the Gurmit Singh

submits that the tenant has himself admitted that the respondent is a NRI. He

further submits that when the landlord appeared in evidence as AW-2, no

suggestion on this aspect of matter was given to the landlord by the learned

counsel representing the tenant. He further submits that the respondent has

proved that he is a NRI by producing a copy of the passport Ex.A-24. It is

further contended that once the leave to contest was granted and the

petitioner has been granted an opportunity to lead evidence, the defect in the

summoning, if any, pales into insignificance.

This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel

representing the parties has gone through the order passed by a Coordinate

Bench in Dwarka Dass's case (supra). In the facts of the case, the Court

held that a separate issue is required to be framed and decided as to whether

the landlord falls within the purview and ambit of NRI. Section 2(d) of the

Act. In the present case, as already noticed, the respondent is proved to be a

NRI particularly when the petitioner himself admits that fact. The Rent

2 of 3

CR-1732-2019(O&M) -3-

Controller has discussed the aforesaid aspect. The failure to frame an issue

may be an irregularity. However, it does not result in vitiating the trial of the

case or the judgment.

The same is the answer to the second argument of the learned

counsel representing the petitioner.

Once, the Rent Controller on an application of the petitioner has

granted him leave to contest and, thereafter, the petitioner has been granted

an opportunity to lead evidence, the defect in the summoning, if any,

becomes irrelevant. Rules of procedure are framed in order to advance the

cause of justice. Violation of procedural law unless vitiates the trial, cannot

be made a basis to set aside a valid judgment delivered on merits.

Further, the scope of jurisdiction while hearing the revision

petition is narrow in view of the judgment passed by the Five Judge Bench

in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9

SCC 78.

Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

Dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

March 29th, 2022                                       (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay                                                           JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned                 :      Yes/No
Whether reportable                        :      Yes/No




                                        3 of 3