LAWS(P&H)-2011-1-243

JITENDER GUPTA Vs. SATPAL BHATTI

Decided On January 28, 2011
Jitender Gupta Appellant
V/S
Satpal Bhatti Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.7.2003, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kurukshetra, by which the Respondent has been granted 'leave to defend'. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner had filed an application for ejectment against the Respondent under Section 13-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act') from the demised premises, namely, House No. 2015, Sector 7, Housing Board Colony, Kurukshetra, which was occupied by the Respondent: at a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- including water and electricity charges w.e.f. May, 1996. The Petitioner alleged that he had been working in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Limited (for short/the Corporation') as Accounts Officer and was living to a rented accommodation at Chandigarh. The said Corporation was closed as it had suffered heavy losses and its employees including the Petitioner were retrenched on payment of three months' salary in lieu of notices and were ordered to be paid retiral benefits. The Petitioner after having been thrown out of service, filed the ejectment petition within one month from 27.7.2002 on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) In this petition, the Respondent had filed an application on 17.9.2002 seeking 'leave to defend'. In that application, it was, interalia, alleged that the Petitioner has not retired from the Corporation and has ancestral property, houses and plot etc, but he has not furnished any such list, therefore, the ingredients of personal necessity were not fulfilled.

(3.) The said application was contested by the Petitioner in which he had reiterated that he had retired from service and necessary record has been placed on the file and with regard to his ownership of the other property, the same was denied and alleged that the applicant had to produce the detail of such property, otherwise, the averment should be treated as vague. The said application has been allowed.