HARJIT SINGH Vs. DAYA RAM SAT NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment would dispose of three civil revision petitions namely Civil Revision Nos. 1445, 1561 and 1810 of 1983 as the common question of law and facts have been raised by the landlord-petitioner against the defendant-tenants who has sought their ejectment claiming to be a specified landlord under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity the Act). For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from C.R.No. 1445 of 1993. The Rent Controller in his order dated 15.12.1992 has repelled the claim of the landlord-petitioner by dismissing his application in which prayer was made for eviction of the tenant-respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.1992 dismissing his application, the landlord-petitioner has filed the present petitions by invoking the provisions of Section 18A of the Act.

(2.) THE findings which have attained finality against the tenant-respondent and have not been challenged before this Court may first be noticed. The Rent Controller has held that the landlord-petitioner is a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the Act as he is entitled to receive the rent in respect of the building on his own account and that the petitioner had retired as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 30.11.1990 from MECON (India) Ltd. Ranchi which is a Government of India undertaking in Ministry of Iron and Steel. The Rent Controller on the strength of Ex.A.3 has further held that the whole shares of the MECON India Ltd. are subscribed by the President of India and for all intents and purposes it was a Central Government enterprise. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the landlord petitioner held an appointment in public service or a post in connection with the affairs with the Union of India which would bring him within the four corners of Section 2(hh) of the Act which reads as under :

(3.) ANOTHER finding which has not been assailed by the tenant-respondent before this Court as recorded by the Rent Controller is regarding the competence or locus standi of the landlord-petitioner to file eviction application. The Rent Controller has held that the landlord-petitioner being one of the co-landlords was entitled to sue under Section 13A of the Act in his capacity as a specified landlord for his personal necessity and he was also entitled to recover rent of the building on his own behalf as he was owner of every nook and corner of the house. The Rent Controller also held that the will propounded by the landlord-petitioner was not contested. Therefore, he was entitled to institute an application under Section 13A of the Act. This finding has also attained finality as none of the tenant- respondents have challenged this finding.