LAW FOR ALL

Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949 - Right to recover possession of rented shop - Tenant was estopped from denying the title - Trial court & High court wrongly come to the conclusion that the disputed shop is not constructed by the plaintiff in his site - even though the defendant admitted that he is a tenant of that shop - Apex court held that We must before parting remind ourselves that Section 13-B is a beneficial provision intended to provide a speedy remedy to NRIs who return to their native places and need property let out by them for their own requirement or the requirement of those who are living with and economically dependent upon them. Their position cannot, therefore, be worse off than what it would have been if they were not Non-Resident Indians. If ordinarily a landlord cannot be asked to prove his title before getting his tenant evicted on any one of the grounds stipulated for such eviction, we see no reason why he should be asked to do so only because he happens to be a Non-Resident Indian. The general principles of Evidence Act including the doctrine of estoppel enshrined in Section 116 are applicable even to the tenants occupying properties of the Non-Resident Indians referred to in the Act. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Courts below and direct eviction of the respondent from the suit premises.=CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8410 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19532 of 2011) Kamaljit Singh …Appellant Vs. Sarabjit Singh …Respondent =2014 - Sep. Month -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41861