R N GOSAIN Vs. YASHPAL DHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of proceedings for eviction initiated by the respondent (landlord) against the petitioner (tenant) under S. 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as amended by Act No. 2 of 1985.

(2.) The proceedings relate to a residential house in Chandigarh which was let out to the petitioner by the respondent. The respondent was. initially employed as Accounts Officer with the Finance Department, of the Government of Haryana. In 1969, he went on deputation with the Haryana Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'). His services were transferred to the University by the Government of Haryana with effect from November 1, 1975, and while he was employed on the post of Comptroller in the University he retired from service with effect from February 28, 1991. Claiming to be a 'specified landlord' within the meaning of S. 2(hh) of the Act, the respondent moved a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner under S. 13A of the Act before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. The said petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller by order dated August 5, 1991 on the view that the respondent did not fall within the ambit of the definition of 'specified landlord' since he had failed to show that he was holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of the State. The respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court under S. 18-A(8) of the Act which was allowed by the High Court by judgment dated March 6, 1992. The High Court held that the respondent, at the time of his retirement from the post of Comptroller in the University, was holding an appointment in connection with the affairs of the State and hence he is a, specified landlord within the meaning of S.2(hh) of the Act. The High Court further found that the respondent had fully satisfied the conditions as contained in S. 13-A of the Act and he was entitled to recover the possession of the premises in dispute from the petitioner. Allowing the revision, the High Court. set aside the order of the Rent Controller and accepted the petition filed by the respondent under S. 13-A of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner. The High Court further directed asunder:

(3.) On March 16, 1992, the petitioner moved a petition in the High Court under S. 151, CPC seeking three months' time to vacate the house and for waiving the requirement of filing of an undertaking. The said petition was rejected by the High Court by order dated March 18, 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an undertaking dated March 20, 1992 before the Rent Controller wherein the petitioner after referring to the direction contained in the order of the High Court dated March 6, 1992 gave the following undertaking: