LAJPAT LOK SEVA SAMTI HOSHIARPUR Vs. VIJAY SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 8.9.1993, passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the application of the petitioner-tenant, seeking leave to contest the petition and ordering the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises, in the petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed by the respondent-landlady.

(2.) THE facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present petition under Section 13-A of the Act against the petitioner-tenant, for his ejectment from the house in question, on the ground that the landlady was working as a teacher in the Central School, Shimla, and her appointment was in connection with the affairs of the Union of India and was thus a "specified landlord" of the building in question. It was alleged that the tenant was holding a portion of the said premises as tenant, under the landlady on a rent of Rs. 400/- per month. It was alleged that initially, the tenant had taken the said premises on rent for housing and condensed course of education for adult women, but later on, the tenant-Society started a school for children in the rented portion of the building and was running the same. It was alleged that the landlady was retiring from service on 30.6.1993 and required the portion in occupation of the tenant, for her residence. It was alleged that the landlady did not own and possess any other "suitable accommodation" in the local area of Hoshiarpur, where she intended to reside or anywhere else. It was alleged that the remaining portion of the building was in occupation of other co-sharers i.e. the three sisters of the landlady. It was alleged that the landlady was suffering from Gout and required the Ground Floor portion and also the portion on the second floor.

(3.) THE landlady filed reply to the application and also filed an affidavit in reply to the affidavit, filed by the tenant. It was alleged that the tenant was served along with copy of the petition under Section 13-A of the Act and as such, the tenant was aware that the petition had been filed under Section 13-A of the Act. It was alleged that the tenant could not take advantage of the defect, if any, in the notice. It was further alleged that the defect, if any, in the notice was cured by supplying the copy of the petition. Similar allegations were made by the landlady regarding notice. With regard to the prayer of the tenant for leave to contest the petition, it was denied by the landlady that she was in possession of sufficient accommodation. It was denied that three rooms in the Ground Floor out of seven rooms, were in possession of the landlady. On the other hand, it was alleged that those rooms were in possession of her three co-sharers i.e. her sisters. It was alleged that even otherwise, the accommodation, as stated in the affidavit, was "not suitable" to reside in. It was further alleged that even otherwise, with the running of the school in the adjoining room, it was not possible to reside in the remaining rooms for the landlady with ailing health. It was alleged that even otherwise, it was not safe for her to live in those rooms as anybody could enter the school. It was further alleged that the accommodation on the First Floor was also with the other co-shares of the landlady and not with her. It was alleged that the landlady required the premises for her residence. It was denied that the petition had been filed for increasing the rent. It was prayed that the permission to contest the petition should not be granted.