KUSHAL TAKHAR Vs. GURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord filed a petition for the ejectment of the petitioners-tenants (who are legal representatives of the original tenant upon whom the tenancy devolved on the death of the latter) on the authority of provisions of Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petition came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 12.6.2009. The petitioners are in revision. The uncontroverted facts may be noticed in the first instance to facilitate proper appreciation of the controversy. The respondent-landlord, a member of the IPS retired from the Government service with effect from 28.2.2009. Prior to the actual date of retirement, he was in correspondence with the Government of Mauritius for appointment as the National Security Advisor to the Government of Mauritius. The appointment order dated 24.4.2009 (Ex. P6) came to be issued during the period of currency of public service of the respondent-landlord who, his formal retirement on 28.8.2009 notwithstanding, continued to be on the assignment aforementioned. The assignment aforementioned is on year to year basis is terminable "either at one month's notice by either party or at any time by mutual agreement."

(2.) The essential controversy agitated before this Court is about whether the respondent-landlord is competent to invoke the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act in the context of his date of superannuation from public service i.e. 28.2.2009 or whether those provisions could validly come into play only with effect from the date of his superannuation from his present assignment as National Security Advisor to the Government of Mauritius. It is argued, with much vehemence, on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent-landlord having concededly obtained an assignment which is functional during his post-retirement period, he has to necessarily wait for his retirement from the post-retirement assignment in order to be able to invoke the provisions of the Act. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed upon a Single Bench ruling of this Court in B.K. Sharma v. Col. Harminder Singh Gill (retired), 1993 105 PunLR 282. In an act of resistance, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that the retirement of the respondent-landlord from the post retirement assignment is of no significance and the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act would apply in relation to the date of retirement from public service i.e. 28/2/2009. Learned Counsel, in support of that averment, relies upon a Single Bench ruling of this Court in S.S. Sodhi of Chandigarh v. Wing Commander Narender Pal Singh, 1990 98 PunLR 260. The view advocated on behalf of the petitioner deserves negation. The reasons therefor are as under:

(3.) In terms of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act would apply only to a 'specified landlord', an expression which has been defined under clause 2(hh) of the Act as under: