R K SUKHUJA Vs. SH CHANDER PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Rent Controller, vide his order dated November 24, 1990, directed ejectment of the tenant R. K Sakhuja under Section 13-A, of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act') while dismissing his application for grant of leave to contest, he was allowed one month's time to vacate the demised premises and put the landlord in possession thereof. The demised premises consist of portion of House No. 158, Sector 9-B, Chandigarh. The tenant has challenged the aforesaid order in this revision petition.

(2.) CHANDER Parkash is the landlord of House No. 158, Sector 9-B, Chandigarh He is in possession of one portion consisting of drawing- cum-dinning room, three bed rooms with attached bath-rooms and a kitchen. The other portion was with the tenant. In the annexe of the main house there was another tenant A portion was let out to the? present tenant Shri R. K. Sakhuja on March 5, 198:^ on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/ -. In addition to the same a sum of Rs. 150/-per month was payable on account of water and electricity charges. The premises were let out purely for residential purposes. Chander Parkash was in service of the State of Haryana He retired from the post of the Deputy Secretary, Haryana Vidban Sabba on September 30, 1989 and thus was a specified landlord as defined under the Act. He is M. A. , LL. B and was a practising lawyer before he joined service. After his retirement he intended to start practice as a lawyer and also wanted to purchase a car. His father Shri Gurbachan Singh Aggarwal was also a leading Advocate practising at Chandigarh who died in 1980. Thus he required immediate possession of tenanted premises for his own occupation. His family consisted of his wife, a daughter and a sod; both school going at the time of creation of tenancy but now they arc grown up, likely to join college next year. The present accommodation was not sufficient. The tenant moved an application for leave to defend the case, inter alia, alleging that the landlord was in possession of the portion of the house in dispute as already described above along with a garage portion. His family consisted of his wife, a daughter-aged about 1 6 years old and a son-aged about 6 to 8 years old. The son being retarded did not require separate accommodation. The landlord had suffered twice illness as he had collapsed 2-3 times. in the bathroom. He was not in a fit position to start legal practice. He also fell down from the scooter and his arm was fractured He was not maintaining any car The accommodation with the landlord was stated to be sufficient. In the reply filed by the landlord his claim was re iterated. After hearing arguments the impugned order was passed.

(3.) SECTION 13-A of the Act was enacted with the sole object of providing summary remedy to the specified landlord as defined for regaining tenanted premises for own use and occupation after retirement, Such claim can only be contested if leave to defend is granted to the tenant on his application supported by affidavit taking op such grounds', which if proved, would disentitle the landlord from claiming possession. Similar provision existed in the Delhi Rent Control Act and the Supreme Court in Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Anr. v. Prem Deva Niranjan Devi Tayal, A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 1518. , observed as under :