KAMALJIT SINGH versus SARABJIT SINGH

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 489 · Decided: 02-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 9 S.C.R. 489 
KAMALJIT SINGH 
v. 
SARABJIT SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 8410 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 02, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
A 
B 
East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949 - s. 13-B c 
-
Right to recover immediate possession of residential 
building or scheduled and/or non-residential building to accrue 
to Non-Resident Indian - Eviction petition by non-resident 
Indian on ttre ground of need of the shop for his own use -
Dismissed by courts below holdif!g that the landlord failed to 
0 
prove his ownership over the demised premises for a period 
of five years before filing of the eviction petition and failure of 
the landlord to co-relate the sale deeds proved by him to the 
shops over which he claimed ownership - Held: When 
ordinarily a landlord cannot be asked to prove his title before 
E 
getting his tenant evicted on any one of the grounds stipulated 
for such eviction, there is no reason why landlord should be 
asked to do so only because he happens to be a NRI - On 
facts, tenant did not dispute either the jural relationship of 
landlord and tenant between the parties or the rate of rent 
F 
settled between them - All that the tenant asserted was that 
he was in possession of the shop since•tf]e year 1992 and 
not since 1989 as asserted by the landlord - Once the tenant 
admitted that he had been let in possession as a tenant by 
the appellant in the year 1992 i.e. more than 10 years before 
the filing of the eviction petition, the requirement of landlord 
G 
being owner of the property for more than five years within the 
meaning of s. 13-8 satisfied -
Thus, so long as a jural 
relationship exists between the tenant and the landlord and 
489 
H 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. 
A so long as tenant has not surrendered the possession of the 
premises in his occupation, he cannot question the title of the 
landlord to the property - 'Tenant would be estopped from 
denying the title of the landlord - Tenant directed to vacate 
the premises - Doctrine of estoppel. 
B 
Appellant-non-resident Indian had let out a shop to 
respondent-tenant. The appellant returned back to India 
in the year 2000 with an intention to settle down and start 
a hotel in the rented shop. The appellant filed an eviction 
petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban 
C Land Restriction Act~1,949 against the respondent-tenant 
on the ground that he needed the shop for his own use. 
The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition filed 
by the appellant holding that the appellant had failed to 
prove his ownership over the demised premises for a 
D period of five years before the filing of the eviction petition 
and that although the sale-deeds in question had been 
proved by the appellant, he had failed to co.;,relate the 
same to the suit shop or other shops over which he 
claimed ownership. In revision petition, the High Court 
E upheld the order passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, 
the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
, HELD: 1. Section 13-8 of the East Punjab Urban Land 
F Restriction Act, 1949 is a code by itself for the special 
category of cases where the landlord happens to be a 
non-resident Indian who returns to India and needs the 
demised premises for his or her own use or for the use 
of anyone ordinarily living with and dependant on him or 
G her. The only limitation on the exercise of the right vested 
under Section 13-8 is that the NRI owner must apply for 
eviction of the tenant only after a period of five years from 
the date he becomes the owner of such a building and 
that any such right sh·a11 be exercisable by hi\11 only once 
H 
KAMALJIT SINGH v. SARABJIT SINGH 
491 
during his life time and in respect of one of the several 
A 
buildings that he may be owning. [Para 9] (497-G-H; 498-
A-B] 
2.1. The appellant placed reliance upon two sale-
deeds in support of his claim of ownership over the suit 
8 
premises. These sale-deeds have been satisfactorily 
proved and accepted at the trial before the Rent 
Controller. The findings recorded by the Rent_Controller 
to that effect are clear and specific. What is according to 
the Rent Controller and the High Court, not established 
is that the sale-deeds relied upon by the appellant relate 
C 
to the land underlying the shops. That view is not sound. 
The reasons are not far to seek. [Para 10] (498-C-E] 
I 
2.2. The respondent did not dispute either the jural 
relationship of landlord 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.