SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. S.S. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT -landlord S.S. Sharma retired on 31.5.1990 as Establishment Officer from the office of the Circle Education Officer, Nabha after attaining the age of superannuation. Before his retirement, he filed petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (as applicable to Chandigarh) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 14.2.1990 on the ground that he being a specified landlord requires the first floor for his own use and occupation as he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the urban area of Chandigarh where he intends to settle down after his retirement. He further stated in the petition that the ground floor of the house which comprises of four rooms, kitchen, latrine and bath room is in possession of his two sons namely Kamal Kant and Anil Kumar Sharma. One of his sons Kamal Kant is married and is having one son whereas his other son is of marriageable age and as such the entire ground floor is being used to by his two sons. He also stated that he has two married daughters who visit him frequently and as such the entire ground floor is required to by him for his own use and occupation. Along with the petition, he also field an affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in Chandigarh where he intends to reside after his retirement.

(2.) THE petitioner who is occupying first floor as tenant under the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 900/- filed petition under section 18-A of the Act supported by an affidavit for the grant of leave to defend petition under section 13-A of the Act. In the petition under Section 18-A of the Act, the petitioner has not denied that the respondent, at the time of his retirement, was living at Nabha where he was residing in a rented accommodation. He has also admitted that sons of respondent are residing on the ground floor. However, he denied that entire ground floor is in their occupation and alleged that two rooms on the ground floor are in the occupation of respondent. Petitioner also stated that the accommodation in occupation of respondent is more than sufficient especially when two daughters of respondent have been married. While petition under section 18-A of the Act was pending consideration, application for leave to defend was amended in order to take up plea that Barsati portion of the house which was in occupation of one Ved Parkash Sharma has been vacated and is now available with the respondent.

(3.) PETITIONER , being aggrieved against the order of learned Rent Controller has filed the present civil revision.