G.S. PUNIA Vs. PARDEEP AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Sr. Counsel for both the parties are agreed that this Revision Petition be finally decided at the motion stage only.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of House No. 502, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh. He filed ejectment application No. 119-A dated 25.4.1996 seeking the ejectment of respondents No. 3 and 4, namely, Naresh Kumar Aggarwal and Gurdayal Singh Virk on the ground of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and material impairment in the value and utility of the tenanted premises. Respondent No. 4 - Gurdayal Singh Virk was served through substituted service. He did not appear in Court and was proceeded ex-parte. The ejectment application was contested by Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, respondent No. 3. The petitioner had claimed that he requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. It was pleaded that the petitioner, who was a pilot in the Indian Air Force, was badly injured during the Indo-Pak War, 1971, when his plane was shot down. The petitioner sustained 65% burn injuries and 100% disability. His right arm had to be amputated. He was awarded the gallantry award, popularly known as "Vir Chakra" by the Government of India. However, the petitioner had to retire from service on account of the disability suffered in the War. His father was shot dead by the terrorist on 30.5.1998. The petitioner had earlier owned and occupied H.No. 1832, Sector 34, Chandigarh. He sold the same in the year 1990 with a view to settle in the U.S.A. However, he could not settle in the USA. He owns a Gas Agency in Sector 32, Chandigarh which was allotted to him because of 100% disability caused by the injuries in the 1971 war. According to the case pleaded, the petitioner has no other place to go and settle in life. At present, he is staying as a licensee with his daughter. It is further pleaded that the respondents have been guilty of such acts and conduct as are likely to materially impair the value and/or utility of the demised premises. Respondent No. 4, the original tenant, has sublet the premises to respondent No. 3 who is using the same as a Guest House. The user of the demised premises as a Guest House is said to be against the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the rules framed thereunder. As a consequence, by order dated 11.8.1983, the demised premises were ordered to be resumed. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of resumption was dismissed on 27.2.1990. The Revision Petition against the order dated 27.2.1990 has also been dismissed on 25.3.1992. The petitioner has filed CWP No. 7941 of 1992 in this Court which is pending adjudication. The operation of the order of resumption has been stayed by this Court in the Civil Writ Petition by order dated 9.2.1993. It is pleaded that unless the High Court sets aside the order of resumption, the petitioner will lose the ownership of the site and the house built thereupon. Respondent No. 3 has denied the allegations made in the petition. Subletting is specifically denied. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) EXECUTING Court by order dated 11.8.1999 dismissed the Objection Petition holding that the Objector had no locus standi to the file the objection petition and has not cause of action in their favour. It was held that the Objection Petition was no maintainable. The Objector, thereafter, filed the appeal which has been accepted by the appellate court on 19.8.1999. It is this judgment which is challenged by the petitioner-landlord in this revision petition.