AMARJIT SINGH CHADHA Vs. JASBIR SINGH LIKHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this case is that "if the specified landlord is already in possession of a portion of the building and wanted additional accommodation by seeking eviction of the tenant, whether leave to defend should be granted in order to decide the sufficiency and suitability of the occupied portion of the landlord".

(2.) This revision petition is brought by the tenant against the order dated 04.11.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller, U.T., Chandigarh on an application filed by the landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises.

(3.) In brief, the case set up by the landlord is that house No.2533, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh was once owned by him alongwith his mother to the extent of 50% share each. His mother sold her 25% share to his wife and after the death of his mother on 10.12.2007, her remaining 25% share was transferred to him by an order of a Lok Adalat dated 06.02.2008 and as such, the landlord became owner of the house to the extent of 75% share and his wife become owner to the extent of 25% share. The tenant was inducted by the mother of the landlord about 15 years back in the demised premises consisting of two rooms, kitchen, toilet-cum-bathroom and terrace/balcony on the back side of the house, for the purpose of residence. The landlord was a serving Army Officer and at the time of filing, of the eviction petition, he was to superannuate on 30.11.2006, but he was allowed to continue in service after the date of his superannuation till 20.11.2010, i.e. till the attainment of age of 58 years. It is also alleged that his wife occupies the entire ground floor of the demised premises with her only son, who is a student. The first floor is being used for letting out to the paying guests by his wife to supplement her income. He filed the eviction petition under Section 13-A of the Act on the ground that he needs Sufficient accommodation after his retirement. After notice, the tenant appeared on 12.03.2010 and filed an application for seeking leave to defend on 17.05.2010 which was replied on 18.10.2010 and by the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller has declined leave to defend and also ordered eviction of the tenant. In the application for seeking leave to defend, it was alleged by the tenant that earlier mother of the landlord had filed eviction petition alongwith him on the ground of nonpayment of rent and personal necessity which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. Thereafter, on appeal, the matter was remanded back but the eviction petition was again dismissed by the learned Rent Controller and the appeal was dismissed. It was, thus, alleged that the landlord wanted to dispossess the tenant at any cost though after the filing of the present eviction petition on 01.05.2010 he had kept seven new paying guests, therefore, there was no bona fide necessity. It is also alleged that it is not a case of necessity, rather it is a case of requirement of additional accommodation where the landlord is not out of possession of his house and for that matter the learned Rent Controller should have allowed his application to defend the eviction petition in order to contest the ground of sufficiency of accommodation.