Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulvinderjit Singh And Anr vs Swaran Singh And Anr on 9 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103321
2023:PHHC:103321
CR-2875-2012(O&M) &
other connected case --1--
231(2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CR-2875-2012 (O&M)
Kulvinderjit Singh and others ....Petitioners....
vs.
Swaran Singh and another ....Respondents.
2. CR-8130-2014 (O&M)
Kulvinderjit Singh and others ....Petitioners...
vs.
Swaran Singh and others ....Respondents.
DECIDED ON:-09.08.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr.Anuj Raura, Advocate and
Mr. Kabir Gautam, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
1. This common judgment shall dispose of two civil revision
petitions bearing CR-2875-2012 and CR No.8130-2014 as common question
of law and fact are involved. The facts are being taken from CR-2875-2012.
2. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to
an order dated 21.03.2012, passed by the learned Rent Controller,
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103321
2023:PHHC:103321
CR-2875-2012(O&M) &
other connected case --2--
Chandigarh, whereby, an application filed by the petitioners under Section
18-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter
referred to as "1949 Act") for grant of leave to defend in an eviction petition
filed by the respondents-landlords, invoking Section 13(B) of the 1949 Act,
came to be rejected.
3. Briefly stating, respondents/landlord, who are settled in UK
filed eviction petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, inter alia on the
ground of bonafide requirement stating that respondent No.1 intended to run
an academy, besides, business of electronics items by his wife.
4. In response, petitioners-tenants filed application seeking leave
to defend, which came to be dismissed by the learned Rent Controller,
Chandigarh, vide order dated 21.03.2012.
5. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the
petitioners vehemently submits that besides few others, a specific and
categoric objection was raised in the application for leave to defend that
respondent No.1, who was employed as Teacher sought his retirement on
medical grounds being not fit and capable to work and thus, his need was
not bonafide. Learned counsel also submits that respondent No.2
unfortunately expired on 07.06.2013, during the pendency of present
revision petition, thus, this subsequent fact and its impact was required to be
considered viz-a-viz the need pleaded in the eviction petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-landlords
submits that the averments made by the petitioners-tenants in para 7 of the
their application for leave to defend as regards the medical condition of
respondent No.1 were specifically denied in the reply and thus, the same
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103321
2023:PHHC:103321
CR-2875-2012(O&M) &
other connected case --3--
cannot be considered as a ground for grant of leave to defend, especially, in
the absence of any material evidence having been produced by the
petitioners-tenants in support. She further submits that the eviction petition
was filed on the ground of bonafide necessity of both husband & wife and,
thus, unfortunate demise of wife-Vimla Kumari would not disentitle the
husband to seek eviction of the property as the bonafide need of husband
still survives.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper-book.
9. Although, the retirement of an individual cannot deprive him
of initiating steps to start a new venture at any stage of life, which can either
be for keeping himself engaged or even to ameliorate his finances. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of a specific
and categoric plea raised in the application for grant of leave to defend,
while submitting that Swaran Singh-respondent No.1 sought retirement as
Teacher on medical grounds and was not fit and capable to work. Unless it
was denied categorically and specifically in the reply filed at the instance of
respondents-landlords, the same required detailed adjudication based on the
documents of retirement of respondents besides pertaining to his health
condition which can be established by affording an opportunity to the
petitioners-tenants to prove their defence and could not be brushed aside
lightly. The issue raised goes to the root of controversy and the same can
only be decided on proper appreciation of evidence which especially has to
come on record from the custody of respondents-landlord being personal in
nature. Plea raised on behalf of respondents-landlords appears to have
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103321
2023:PHHC:103321
CR-2875-2012(O&M) &
other connected case --4--
substance that the demise of wife-Vimla Kumari would not disentitle
respondent No.1-husband to seek eviction on account of his own bonafide
necessity invoking Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. In view of the discussion
made hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to allow the petitioners-tenants to
submit their defence, by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.03.2012.
10. Considering the fact that the eviction petition was filed in the
year 2010 and the same is still at the initial stage of adjudication upon
application for leave to defend only, the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh
is requested to conclude the proceedings in the eviction petition within a
period of three months from today.
11. The parties through their counsels are requested to appear
before the learned Rent Controller on 18.08.2023.
12. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are disposed of in
view of the aforesaid observation.
09.08.2023 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103321
4 of 4
