Supreme Court Upholds Eviction of Tenant Under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949

Date of the Judgment: 05 October 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 873

Judges: Aniruddha Bose J., Sanjay Kumar J., S.V.N. Bhatti J.

Can a landlord, who is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), evict a tenant using a summary procedure if their family members possess other shops in the same building? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the eviction of a tenant under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. This case examines the scope and limitations of Section 13-B of the Act, which allows NRIs to seek immediate possession of their properties. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar, and S.V.N. Bhatti, with the opinion authored by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.

Case Background

The appellant, Mukesh Kumar, was a tenant in Shop No. 5, owned by S. Kuldeep Singh, located at Guru Amardas Chowk, Model Town, Jalandhar. S. Kuldeep Singh inherited the property from his father, late S. Harbhajan Singh. The monthly rent was Rs. 225/-. S. Kuldeep Singh, an NRI who had been working in England, returned to India due to a recession and sought to start a business in his shop. He filed an eviction application under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, stating that he needed the shop for his own use and that he did not possess any other premises.

Mukesh Kumar, the tenant, opposed the eviction, arguing that S. Kuldeep Singh was not the owner and that he was not a Non-Resident Indian as defined by the Act. He also contended that S. Kuldeep Singh’s family members owned other shops in the same building, and one of those shops had previously been the subject of a failed eviction attempt by S. Kuldeep Singh’s mother. Mukesh Kumar also stated that S. Kuldeep Singh had offered to sell the tenanted premises for twenty lakh rupees, which was inconsistent with his claim of not being the owner.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which provides a right to Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) to recover immediate possession of their properties. The section states:

“13B. Right to recover immediate possession of residential building or scheduled building and/or non -residential building to accruing to Non -resident Indian. – (1) Where an owner is a Non -Resident Indian and returns to India and the residential building or scheduled building and/or non -residential building, as the case may be, let out by him or her, is required for his or her use, or for the use of any one ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her, he or she, may apply to the Controller for immediate possession of such building or buildings, as the case may be: Provided that a right to apply in respect of such a building under this Section, shall be available only after a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner of such a building and shall be available only once during the life time of such an owner.”

Section 18-A of the same Act outlines the special procedure for disposing of applications under Section 13-B. Specifically, Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 18-A are relevant:

“(4) The tenant on whom the service of summons has been declared to have been validly made under sub -section (3), shall have no right to contest the prayer for eviction from the [residential building or scheduled building and/or non residential building], as the case may be, unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided, and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grandchild or the widowed daughter -in-law of such specified landlord [or the owner, who is non resident Indian] in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction of the tenant.
(5) The Controller may give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would desentitle the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand – child or widowed daughter -in-law [or the owner, who is non resident Indian] of such specified landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the [residential building or scheduled building and/or non residential building], as the case may be, under [section 13 -A or section 13 -B].”

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant (Mukesh Kumar):

• S. Kuldeep Singh is not the owner of the tenanted premises and therefore, the eviction petition is not maintainable. The tenanted premises are part of a larger building, and S. Kuldeep Singh’s family members own other shops within the same building.

• S. Kuldeep Singh does not qualify as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) under Section 2(dd) of the Act and therefore, cannot seek eviction under Section 13-B.

• The eviction proceedings were vitiated by malafides, as S. Kuldeep Singh did not genuinely intend to do business in India. He had offered to sell the property, which is inconsistent with his claim of needing it for his own use.

• The Rent Controller and the High Court did not properly apply the safeguards built into the summary eviction procedure under Section 13-B. The fact that a family member of S. Kuldeep Singh had previously secured an eviction order for another shop in the same building should have been considered.

• The conditions of Section 13-B are mandatory and must be strictly followed. The right to apply for eviction under Section 13-B is available only after five years from the date of becoming the owner and only once during the lifetime of the owner. These conditions were not met.

Arguments of the Respondent (S. Kuldeep Singh):

• The eviction was fully compliant with the requirements of Section 13-B of the Act. The findings of fact recorded by the lower courts should not be disturbed in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

• Section 18-A obligates the tenant to apply for leave to defend the summary eviction petition by stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the eviction. The Rent Controller examines these grounds and the affidavit filed by the tenant to determine if a case for leave to defend is made out.

• The legal contention regarding the definition of “building” under Section 2(a) of the Act, read with the first proviso of Section 13-B, was not raised before the Rent Controller or the High Court. New grounds should not be entertained by the Supreme Court.

• The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the High Court and the Rent Controller should be upheld. The tenant’s objections were duly considered and rejected by the lower courts.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue the court addressed was:

1. Whether the eviction of the tenant under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was valid, considering the tenant’s arguments and the circumstances of the case.

The court also considered the sub-issue of whether the tenant had made out a sufficient case for leave to defend under Section 18-A of the Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to explain the scope of Section 13-B of the Act and the conditions that an NRI landlord must fulfill to seek eviction under this provision. The Court in the present case reiterated that the conditions under Section 13-B are mandatory.
• Ram Krishan Grover and others v. Union of India and others, (2020) 12 SCC 506, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to further explain the true ratio of Baldev Singh Bajwa and to highlight that the restrictions and conditions under Section 13-B are in-built checks to ensure that the landlord’s need is genuine.
• Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, (2001) 1 SCC 706, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to explain the standard for granting leave to defend, stating that leave should not be granted on mere asking but when the pleas and contentions raise triable issues.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: This section provides the right to Non-Resident Indians to recover immediate possession of their properties under certain conditions.
• Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: This section outlines the special procedure for disposing of applications under Section 13-B, including the conditions for granting leave to defend to the tenant.
• Section 2(dd) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: This section defines a Non-Resident Indian.
• Section 2(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: This section defines a building.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the ratio laid down in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini [ (2005) 12 SCC 778]* to reiterate that the conditions under Section 13-B are mandatory and must be complied with.
• The Court applied the explanation of the ratio of Baldev Singh Bajwa as given in Ram Krishan Grover and others v. Union of India and others [(2020) 12 SCC 506]* to emphasize that the restrictions and conditions under Section 13-B are in-built checks to ensure that the landlord’s need is genuine.
• The Court applied the standard laid down in Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh [(2001) 1 SCC 706]* to conclude that the leave to defend should not be granted on mere asking but when the pleas and contentions raise triable issues.

Reasoning:

The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, stating that the tenant, Mukesh Kumar, failed to make a case for leave to defend under Section 18-A of the Act. The Court agreed with the Rent Controller and the High Court that S. Kuldeep Singh had satisfied the requirements of Section 13-B of the Act. The Court found that the tenant’s arguments were either inconsistent with his own pleadings or were new grounds raised at a later stage, which could not be entertained. The Court emphasized that the onus was on the tenant to demonstrate facts that would disentitle the landlord from obtaining summary eviction, which the tenant failed to do.

The Court noted that the Rent Controller’s discretion under Section 18-A was limited to verifying that the tenant’s affidavit disclosed grounds to contest the eviction. The Court agreed with the lower courts that the tenant had not made out a sufficient case for leave to defend, and the arguments raised were not substantial enough to warrant a trial.

The Court also noted that the tenant had raised new grounds before the High Court and the Supreme Court, which were not part of his original defense. The Court held that new pleas cannot be entertained at the appellate stage, especially when they were not raised before the primary court. The court also observed that the argument regarding the possession of other shops by the family members was not raised with certainty while seeking leave to defend the Eviction Petition.

The Supreme Court stated:

“From the scheme of things under Section 13 -B read with Section 18 -A, we are of the view that the owner invoking Section 13 -B satisfies the ingredients of the said Section and the onus is on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction under Section 13 -B, which, in our considered view, Mukesh Kumar failed to do.”

“We have considered the grounds raised before us and believe that the tenant is introducing a new case, which this Court is not persuaded to entertain new pleas, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present Civil Appeal.”

“In our considered view, the Courts below on being satisfied that the requirements of Section 13 -B are complied with, rightly rejected the leave to defend as Mukesh Kumar failed to make out a case under Sub -Sections (4) and (5) of Section 18 -A of the Act.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Compliance with Section 13-B: The Court was convinced that the landlord, S. Kuldeep Singh, had met all the requirements of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. This included being a Non-Resident Indian, owning the property, and needing it for his own use.
• Tenant’s Failure to Establish a Strong Defense: The Court emphasized that under Section 18-A of the Act, the tenant must present a strong case to challenge the landlord’s claim. The tenant, Mukesh Kumar, failed to provide sufficient evidence or legal arguments to warrant leave to defend.
• Inconsistency in Tenant’s Pleadings: The Court noted that the tenant’s arguments were inconsistent. For example, the tenant’s claim that S. Kuldeep Singh was not the owner was contradicted by his own admission that he had negotiated to buy the property from S. Kuldeep Singh.
• New Grounds Raised at Later Stages: The Court did not entertain new arguments raised by the tenant at the High Court and Supreme Court levels that were not part of his original defense before the Rent Controller.
• Limited Scope of Inquiry under Section 18-A: The Court clarified that the Rent Controller’s role under Section 18-A is limited to verifying that the tenant’s affidavit discloses grounds to contest the eviction. The Court agreed with the lower courts that the tenant had not made out a sufficient case for leave to defend.

Fact:Law Ratio

The sentiment analysis indicates that the Court was significantly influenced by the tenant’s failure to present a strong defense and the legal requirements of Section 13-B and 18-A of the Act. The ratio of Fact:Law suggests that while the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal provisions and their interpretation played a more significant role in the Court’s decision.

Key Takeaways

• Strict Compliance with Section 13-B: Landlords seeking eviction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, must strictly comply with all the conditions, including being a Non-Resident Indian, owning the property, and requiring it for their own use.
• Onus on Tenant: Tenants opposing eviction under Section 13-B must present a strong defense with clear and consistent grounds, as the onus is on them to show why the landlord should not be granted possession.
• No New Grounds at Appellate Stage: New arguments or defenses not raised before the primary court (Rent Controller) will not be entertained at the appellate stage (High Court or Supreme Court).
• Limited Scope of Inquiry under Section 18-A: The Rent Controller’s role in summary eviction cases is limited to verifying that the tenant’s affidavit discloses grounds to contest the eviction.
• Family Arrangements Not a Bar: The fact that other family members of the landlord may own properties in the same building does not automatically bar the landlord from seeking eviction under Section 13-B.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment. The appeal was dismissed, and the eviction order was upheld.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) landlord seeking eviction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, must meet the conditions specified in the section. Once those conditions are met, the onus shifts to the tenant to demonstrate valid grounds for contesting the eviction. The Court also clarified that the scope of inquiry under Section 18-A is limited to verifying the tenant’s affidavit, and new grounds cannot be introduced at the appellate stage. This judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 13-B as a special provision for NRIs, while also ensuring that tenants are given a fair opportunity to present a valid defense.

The judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces the existing legal framework by reiterating the principles laid down in Baldev Singh Bajwa and Ram Krishan Grover. The Court clarified that the conditions under Section 13-B are mandatory and that the tenant must present a strong case to challenge the landlord’s claim.

Conclusion

In the case of Mukesh Kumar vs. S. Kuldeep Singh, the Supreme Court of India upheld the eviction of the tenant, Mukesh Kumar, under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Court found that the landlord, S. Kuldeep Singh, had satisfied all the requirements of Section 13-B, and the tenant had failed to provide sufficient grounds for leave to defend. The judgment reinforces the special provisions for Non-Resident Indian landlords while ensuring that tenants have a fair opportunity to present a valid defense. The Court emphasized that new grounds cannot be raised at the appellate stage and that the onus is on the tenant to demonstrate facts that would disentitle the landlord from obtaining summary eviction.