COMMODORE HARJIT SINGH KANG Vs. H.C. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed a petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (amended upto date), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises. The case of the petitioner is that the House No. 475, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh, was owned by his father late Sardar Chandan Singh Kang. That, during his life time, he had inducted the respondent as tenant on the ground floor at a monthly tenancy of Rs. 180/-, payable in advance. Sardar Chandan Singh Kang died on September 3, 1986 leaving behind a Will, on the basis of which, the house devolved upon his widow Smt. Gurdev Kaur and his four sons namely Gurbhajan Singh Kang, Harjit Singh Kang (petitioner), Gursharan Singh Kang and Jasbir Singh Kang. The house in question was duly mutated in favour of the aforesaid persons in the records of the Estate Office, Union Territory, Chandigarh. It is averred that a family settlement was arrived at on December 25, 1994 by the successors. It is alleged that the tenanted premises were defined to have fallen to the exclusive lot and ownership of Smt. Gurdev Kaur and sons. Since the property had been inherited by all as aforesaid, the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent came into existence between them.

(2.) THE petitioner was serving as a Commodore in Indian Navy and he retired on June 7, 1995. The petition for eviction has been filed in the capacity of a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2(HH) of the Act. It is admitted fact that appointment of Commodore in Indian Navy is a public service in connection with the affairs of Union of India. It is averred that the petitioner does not own and possess any other accommodation in the urban area of Chandigarh and that he intends to reside in the demised premises on the ground floor. Additionally, it has been mentioned that the respondent (tenant) owns an eight marla double storey, house bearing No. 2390, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh. The said premises have been let out by the tenant at a monthly tenancy of approximately Rs. 5000/-. The respondent-tenant was required to vacate the premises but he refused to do so, which led to the filing of the petition.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller decided Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. However, issue No. 3 has been decided in favour of the petitioner. In view of findings on issues No. 1 and 2, the petition has been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated November 7, 1998.