S S SODHI Vs. WING COMMANDER NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petttion on behalf of the tenant is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated October 7, 1989, whereby ejectment order has been passed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act)

(2.) THE landlord Shri Narender Pal Singh retired as a Wing Commander on October 31, 1984, vide retirement order. Exhibit P. 3. The disputed house was built by him in the year 1975 In March, 1983, he let out the ground floor of the disputed house to Shri S. S. Sodhi, the tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 -. After his retirement, the landlord intended to settle at Chandigarh and requested the tenant to vacate the premises. Meanwhile, the landlord bad shifted temporarily to house No. 156 in Sector 8-A, Chandigarh. The landlord claimed himself to be a specified landlord as defined under Section 2 (hh) of the Act and filed the ejectment application under section 13-A, of the Act, dated January 17, 1987. It was pleaded therein that he did not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intended to shift after his retirement. The tenant appeared and applied for leave to contest the said application which was allowed vide order dated September 26, 1988 In the written statement fifed by the tenant he admitted himself to be a tenant under the landlord on the ground floor of the disputed house on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and the petitioner having retired from the Indian Air Force, but contested the same on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord According to the tenant, the landlord was not a specified landlord as defined under the Act, as he had sought re-employment after having retired from the Indian Air Force as the Security Officer with the Zonal Office of the Punjab National Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh and that he had been provided with official accommodation by the Bank in House No. 156, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh which was more than sufficient for his family consisting of the landlord, his wife, his son and his daughter. :-It was also alleged that the present petition had been filed with oblique motive to pressurise the tenant to increase the rent The learned Rent Controller, after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, came to the conclusion that it had been amply proved on the record that the landlord was a specified landlord as defined under the Act. A copy of the Gazette Notification was also brought on the record, showing the petitioner as one of the retired officers of the Indian Air Force. As regards the factum of re-employment, the learned Rent Controller found that even if the landlord had been provided with residential accommodation by his employer Bank, it would not be a bar to him to seek eviction of the tenant from the demised premises if be wanted to settle at Chandigarh in the disputed house owned by him. According to the Rent Controller it was for the landlord to choose as to where he intends to settle after his retirement. Since it has been proved on the record that the landlord does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Chandigarh and he wanted to settle in the disputed house, he was entitled to eject his tenant under Section 13-A of the Act. Consequently, the ejectment order was passed on October 7, 1989.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the tenanat petitioner submitted that the respondent was not a specified landlord as defined under the Act since be had been re-employed. According to the learned counsel, he will be entitled to eject his tenant under Section 13-A after his retirement from the subsequent employment in the Bank because official accommodation has been provided by the Bank to the landlord. He further submitted that since the original certificate of retirement was not produced on the record, there was no proof that the petitioner had retired, as alleged, from the Indian Air Force. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Sohan Lal v. Col. Prem Singh Grewal, (1989-2) 96 P. L. R. 139. It was also contended that the service of the Punjab National Bank where the landlord had bee a re-employed will be deemed to be the service in connection with the affairs of the State as held by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 994 of 1989, decided on August 28, 1989.