In CR 8324/2015 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Leave to contest can be granted only on grounds contained in tenant’s application u/s 18-A of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 & Rent Controller cannot travel beyond such grounds, rules P&H HC
Justice Nidhi Gupta [19-05-2023]

Read Order: Capt. K. Phool Singh (deceased) Represented By His LRs Vs. Rajinder Kumar Kalia 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, May 22, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the tenants to handover vacant possession of the demised premises within 3 months to the owner while observing that the petitioners were deliberately seeking to obfuscate the issue and they had also failed to establish any fraud on part of the respondent-landlord before the Rent Controller. 

Referring to the judgment of the Top Court in Precision Steel and Engineering Works v Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, wherein it has been held that at the stage of granting leave, affidavit of tenant is the only relevant document, the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Nidhi Gupta asserted, “In my view, it is a very clear proposition of law that leave to contest can be granted only and only on the basis of grounds contained in the application filed by the tenant under Section 18-A of the Act.”

The respondent/landlord had filed a petition u/s 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the tenanted premises on grounds of bona-fide personal necessity, as also arrears of rent.

It was the pleaded case of the respondent-landlord that he is an NRI who had settled in England since past several years, and he was owner of the demised premises by way of Sale Deed. It was submitted that he was now 58 years of age and wanted to settle in Chandigarh with his family in the last years of his life. Therefore, he required the demised premises for his own personal use and bonafide necessity. 

In the rent petition the respondent also stated that he did not occupy any residential premises i.e. residential building in the urban area of Chandigarh, nor had he vacated any such premises after the commencement of the Act. Upon receipt of summons in the ejectment petition, the petitioner herein filed instant application u/s 18-A for grant of leave to contest n within the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt of summons. 

In the said application the petitioner raised the objection that he had received the summons along with copy of petition only, without any Annexures/documents as mentioned in the petition. The petitioner contended that the respondent’s ownership over the demised premises was not proved as no document of ownership had been supplied and bona fide personal necessity of the respondent was not made out.

It was this application filed by the petitioner for leave to contest u/s 18-A which had been dismissed vide impugned order. Hence, the revision petition was filed.

Noting that an application for leave to contest is maintainable u/s 18-A, the Bench said, “A bare perusal of the above provision leads to the irresistible conclusion that Leave to Contest can only be granted on the basis of the affidavit filed by the tenant before the Rent Controller, and the Rent Controller cannot travel beyond the grounds contained in the said affidavit.”

The Bench also noticed that the grounds now sought to be raised by the petitioner before the High Court in the revision petition were not pleaded by him before the Rent Controller.  As per the Bench, leave to contest can be granted only on the basis of grounds contained in the application filed by the tenant under Section 18-A.

According to the Bench, it was not open to the Rent Controller to travel beyond the grounds raised by the tenant in his application for leave to contest, and as per law, petitioner was not to be permitted to raise the present issues. “Therefore, at this stage the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the extraneous grounds, which are beyond the pleadings as contained in the application u/s 18-A of the Act”, the Bench held.

The petitioner had doubted the Indian origin of the respondent as, his passport did not state that the birthplace of the respondent ‘Mulewalkhera’ is in India. Considering that there was nothing on record to show that Mulewalkhera does not fall within India, the Bench made it clear that the respondent is of Indian origin, as required under Section 2(dd)  and thus, it couldnot be said that respondent is not an NRI. Therefore, ejectment petition filed by the respondent u/s 13B of the Act was maintainable, the Bench held. 

It was also observed that Sections 13 and 13B are two distinct remedies available to the landlord, and proceedings filed by the landlord under general provisions of the Act would not bar him from pursuing remedy available to him u/s 13B. 

“ However, prima facie, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is deliberately seeking to  obfuscate the issue, whereas the facts are clear and unambiguous on record.  Moreover, nothing whatsoever has been produced by the petitioner to controvert these facts as noticed above”, the Bench held while noting, “As regards the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner, the same pertain to and are in support of the contention that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud upon the Court is a nullity. However, petitioner can derive no support from the same, as petitioner has failed to establish any fraud on part of the respondent before the ld. Rent Controller.”

Thus dismissing the petition, the Bench ordered, “Petitioners are directed to handover vacant possession of the demised premises within three months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”