DAYA PARKASH MAHENDRU Vs. DARSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the landlord, whereby his application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") has been dismissed.

(2.) FACTS of the case, in so far as they are relevant for decision of the present case, are as under :

(3.) THE petitioner retired from the post of Accountant with the Punjab National Bank, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, on May 31, 1986, on attaining the age of superannuation. He filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act, seeking the eviction of the respondent/ tenant from the demised premises, which is one room in a part of the building occupied by the petitioner, on the ground that the portion of the same house which was in his possession, was not suitable to his needs. The Rent Controller allowed the respondent leave to contest the case and thereafter dismissed the application. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner, being ex-employee of the Punjab National Bank, was a 'specified landlord', as defined under Section 2 (hh) of the Act and the petition filed by him was maintainable, but as the respondent had used the premises for commercial purposes only from the very inception of the tenancy, an application under Section 13 A of the Act was not the appropriate remedy. The Rent Controller after recording a finding placing reliance on a Full Bench decision Sh. Hari Mittal v. Sh. B. M. Sikka, (1986-1) 89 P. L. R. 1 (F. B) held that the change of user had been affected without the written consent of the landlord taken under Section 11 of the Act and as such the premises in dispute continued to be a residential one but dismissed the petition on the short ground that as the petitioner was already occupying a portion of same property, it was not open to him to take proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act as the question as to whether the portion in the possession of the petitioner was suitable to his needs or not, was not a matter that could be decided in these proceedings. The Rent Controller also found that as the petitioner had been serving in Ludhiana itself when he superannuated, the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act were not applicable as the same could be utilised by only such employees who on superannuation, had come from other places. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner-landlord has come in revision before this Court.