100 wpm english shorthand dictation l All in One for You l Steno Dictation 426 words l

100 wpm english shorthand dictation l All in One for You l Steno Dictation 426 words l

    There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of the property by sale or any other manner. The restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord would approach the court he would approach when his need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of-course, subject to tenant’s right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under Section 13-B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of the tenant, the Court shall presume that landlord’s need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. But this would not disentitle the tenant from proving that the fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord’s favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine.

                We cannot subscribe to the submission  of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord’s need regarding the bona fide and genuineness is permitted, the legislative intent of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained according to plain language used in the enactment and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice or absurdities. The ownership is thus, proved since it is admitted that the earlier owner was Sampuran Singh and sufficient material has been placed on record to show the respondent is none else but the son of Sampuran Singh. The ownership is, thus, proved since it is admitted that the earlier owner was Sampuran Singh and sufficient material has been placed on record to show that respondent is none else but the son of Sampuran Singh.