PARMOD KUMAR TANDON Vs. DESH PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act) challenging the order passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 4.3.2010 whereby application of the defendant/revisionist moved under Section 18A of the 1949 Act for seeking permission to defend, was refused.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that the landlord - owner preferred petition under Section 13A of the 1949 Act for ejectment of the revisionist from the property in question on the ground that the petitioner is specified landlord as defined under Section 2(hh) of the 1949 Act and retired on 30.9.2008 as General Manager from the Steel Authority of India Ltd, a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India. The landlord is in need of the tenanted portion under the tenancy of the revisionist on account of paucity of accommodation available in the building. Landlord has pleaded in the eviction petition that while in service, he was having accommodation of about 3000 sq. feet consisting of three bed rooms, drawing rooms, dining rooms, kitchen, store, servant quarter and garage and now the portion available with the landlord in the same building is not sufficient for his need as per his status.

(3.) Tenant - revisionist moved an application under Section 18A of the 1949 Act seeking liberty to defend. The Rent Controller vide impugned Judgment has rejected the application of the revisionist seeking leave to defend on the ground that undisputedly plaintiff is specified landlord as defined under Section 2(hh) of the 1949 Act and stood retired as General Manager from the Steel Authority of India Ltd. The Rent Controller further observed that the revisionist - tenant has not pointed out that any other accommodation is available in the possession and occupation of the landlord to deny the benefit of Section 13A of the 1949 Act.