NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3402-3404 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 23399-23401 of 2008)

Rachpal Singh & Ors.                                                        ……….Appellants

Versus

Gurmit Kaur & Ors.                                                            ……..Respondents

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu,J.  

1)   This is a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the  

Constitution  from the  judgment  and  order  dated  28.4.2008  of  the  High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. We grant special leave and  

dispose of this appeal.

2)   By the judgment and the order impugned, High Court has allowed and  

remanded all the three Revision Petitions to the Rent Controller, Nakodar,  

1

to reconsider all the issues raised in the application filed under Section 18-A  

of the Act in accordance with law.

3) The  factual  matrix  as  asserted  by  the  respondent  /landlady  are;   the  

respondent/  Gurmit  Kaur  is  the  owner/landlady  of  the  disputed property  

which was purchased by her vide registered sale deed dated 16.4.1971. The  

building has four shops and three of which has been let out to the appellants  

and the fourth shop to one Sri Vijay Kumar.  The respondent claiming to be  

an NRI and being desirous of having  possession of the tenanted premises  

so as to settle down in India,  sought eviction of tenants by filing separate  

petitions under section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,  

1949 against all the four tenants.  

4)   The tenants appeared in all the four eviction petitions, out of which three  

are pending before the Rent Controller, Nakodar. The tenants  have filed  

applications for leave to contest under section 18-A of the act, wherein, they  

dispute  the  landlord  and tenant  relationship  and according  to  them  the  

shops were let out to them by one Gurbachan Singh and not by respondent  

and the tenants are paying rents regularly  to him. Secondly, the respondent  

was not an NRI at the time of letting out the shop premises and has not  

acquired the status of an NRI even till today.     

5)   In the eviction petition filed  against one another tenant Vijay Kumar,  

the respondent had claimed that she is an NRI and has leased out one of the  

2

shops in the building owned by her to Vijay Kumar in the year 1990.  Since,  

she has come back to India, she requires the shop premises for her own use  

and occupation. By way of defence, it was alleged by Vijay Kumar that he  

is not the tenant of  the disputed shop, and it is his brother Vipin Kumar is  

the  tenant  and is  running the  shop in  his  own name and,  therefore,  the  

proceedings filed under section 13-B of the Rent Act is  not maintainable  

for non-joinder of necessary and proper  parties.   

6)   The Rent Controller, Nakodar, vide its order dated 15.6.2007, without  

giving any finding with regard to the status of the respondent/Gurmit Kaur  

being NRI or not, had concluded that the tenancy created in favour of Vijay  

Kumar stands prima facie proved from the rent deed dated 7.7.1993 and as  

such there is no tenancy created in favour of Vipin Kumar and therefore, the  

petition filed  under Section 13-B of the Rent Act by the landlady deserves  

to be allowed and, accordingly, has directed Vijaya Kumar to deliver the  

immediate possession of the shop premises to the landlady.    

7)   In respect of other three petitions, Rent Controller vide its order dated  

15.6.2007, has granted to the tenants leave to defend the petition filed by  

the landlady under Section 13-B of the Rent Act.

8)   Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the respondent landlady had  

filed revision petitions before the High Court, inter alia, asserting that the  

learned Rent Controller in the case of Gurmit Kaur v. Vijay Kumar, has  

3

found the respondent/landlady is an NRI after looking into her passport and  

the sale deed dated 16.4.1971, and the same Rent Controller in other three  

petitions  has  taken  a  different  view and has  allowed the application  for  

leave  to  defend  and,  therefore,  the  order  passed  is  arbitrary  and  

impermissible  in law.   

9)   The High Court, while allowing the petitions has observed, that, the Rent  

Controller would be justified in permitting the tenants leave to defend, if it  

is  of  the  opinion  that  some  triable  issue  would  arise  in   view  of  the  

contentions raised in the application filed under Section 18-A of the Act and  

at any rate, not on the ground that the respondent is not an NRI and that  

would lead to incongruous situation in view of the conflicting orders passed  

by the same court on the status of the respondent, and accordingly, has set  

aside the impugned orders and has remitted back to the Rent Controller,  

Nakodar,  to reconsider the application filed by the tenants under Section  

18-A of the Act in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order of remand  

so passed, the appellants are before us in this appeal.

10)The Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the order in Vijay  

Kumar’s  case  does  not  even  record  a  finding  to  the  effect  that  the  

respondent is an NRI; hence the inferential finding in Vijay Kumar’s case  

could not be binding in the cases of the appellants. It is further submitted  

that the Rent Controller in Vijay Kumar’s case has accepted the claim of the  

4

respondent on the ground that Vijay Kumar in order to avoid the order of  

eviction had stated that his brother Vipin Kumar is the tenant of the shop  

premises,  but  in fact  it  was Vijay Kumar in whose name rent  deed was  

executed, and the Rent Controller has just made a passing reference to the  

passport  and  sale  deed  of  the  respondent  without  deciding  whether  the  

respondent is an NRI. Therefore, in the instant Revision Petitions the High  

Court  has erred in giving a finding that  the learned Rent Controller  has  

considered the respondent as an NRI.  

11)The genesis of our procedural laws is to be traced to principles of natural  

justice, the principal amongst them being that no one shall suffer civil or  

evil or pecuniary consequence at his back without giving him an adequate  

and effective opportunity to participate to disprove the case against him and  

prove his own case. (See Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand, (1983) 1  

SCC 301)  

12)If  some triable  issues are raised then the controversy can be properly  

adjudicated  after  ascertainment  of  truth  through  cross-examination  of  

witnesses  who  have  filed  their  affidavits  and  other  material  documents.  

Burden is  on the landlord to prove his requirements  and his assertion is  

required to be tested more so when the status of the respondent has been  

specifically challenged and also when the landlord-tenant relationship is in  

question.   Therefore,  we do not  see  any infirmity in  the  common order  

5

passed by the High Court  in Civil  Revision Petitions  4096 of  2007 and  

connected matters dated 28.04.2008.

13)We, accordingly, dismiss these appeals and sustain the impugned order  

passed  by  the  High  Court.   However,  we  direct  the  Rent  Controller  to  

independently  examine  the  applications  filed  by  the  appellants  under  

Section 18-A of the Act in accordance with law and also if there are any  

triable issues between the parties, decide the same in accordance with law  

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within an outer limit of nine months  

from the date of receipt of this Court’s order and while doing so, the Rent  

Controller need not be influenced by any of the observations made by the  

High Court while disposing of Civil Revision Petitions.  In the facts and  

circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [ H.L. DATTU ]

New Delhi, May 08, 2009.

6