DILBAGH SINGH Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present revision petition is to the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Chandigarh Amendment) Act, 1982 (for brevity, 'the Act') wherein the ejectment application filed by the landlord has been allowed and the application for seeking leave to defend has been rejected.

(2.) THE landlord filed the petition on 13.05.2011 within one year prior to his retirement under Section 13-A of the Act to recover immediate possession of the residential building described as House No.2868/2, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh on the ground that he is a co-owner and received rent on his own account and was holding an appointment as Supervisor in the Office of Principal Accountant General (Audit), Haryana, Chandigarh in connection with the affairs of Union of India and was to retire on 31.07.2011. It was averred that the petitioner's tenancy under the respondent was established in the previous litigation which has become final between the petitioner and the respondent. THE respondent attached certified copies of order dated 02.05.2006 passed by the Court of Mrs.Nirja Kulwant Kalson, Rent Controller, Chandigarh in Rent Petition No.4 of 03.01.2003 and judgment dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Court of Sh.R.K.Sondhi, Appellate Authority, Chandigarh in Rent Appeal No.42 of 2006 and the subsequent orders dated 18.02.2009 in CR No.1952 of 2008 decided by this Court. THE original certificate issued by the competent authority to remove the respondent from service showing the date of respondent's retirement as 31.07.2011 was also appended. It was also averred that the landlord does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Chandigarh and thus, had a right to recover immediate possession.

(3.) THE application was contested by filing reply and it was held out that the co-owner was also the sole owner and reliance was placed upon Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath & others AIR 1976 SC 2335 and it was pleaded that in the previous litigation between the parties, the tenant had been paying the rent to the landlord by tender or deposit in the Court and he could not be permitted to deny the title of the landlord. THE requirement of law was to show the intention of the date of retirement through a certificate of the employer and tendering an affidavit that he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation and that the requirement was fully met in the ejectment petition. THE landlord having retired as Supervisor from the office of the Principal, Accountant General (Audit) Haryana, Chandigarh in connection with the Union of India and that he was a specified landlord and the respondent's father name was Amrit Singh who had expired and who was the owner and the landlord was the co-owner and the tenant paid rent to him and he was entitled to receive the rent from the tenant. It was pleaded that the property returns were not relevant for seeking eviction of the tenant and did not affect the relationship of landlord and tenant. THE agreement to sell with Jagdish Lal was denied and the premises could not be used for godown as alleged by the tenant. It was denied that the summons were not properly served and the possession of House No.2828, Sector 22, Chandigarh was stated to be of the brother of the landlord and the house belonged to him and it was in his possession and control and the landlord was not connected with it and there was no concealment.