TARA SINGH JASSAL Vs. GURDIAL SINGH BRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against order of Rent Controller dated 14. 5. 1991, whereby permission sought by him to contest the petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, has been declined.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, Gurdial Singh filed a petition for the eviction of the present petitioner on the ground that he is a 'specified landlord' having retired as an Executive Engineer with effect from 31st December 1990, and does not own and possess any suitable and sufficient accommodation within the local area of Chandigarh, where he intends to reside. Notice of this application was served upon the respondent, who put in appearance through his general attorney. The petitioner contested the claim of the landlord to seek eviction on the ground that he is a 'specified landlord'. In addition to this, petitioner contended that premises in dispute comprised of only one room on the ground floor, facing the market which was given on rent in the year 1980 for imparting training to students for Television and Refrigeration and since then the petitioner is running the said Institute in the name and style of Institute of Electronics. This way, the petitioner urged that the building having been let out for a non-residential/commercial. purpose, same cannot come within the ambit of Section 13-A of the Act, The petitioner further averred that the landlord is residing in house No. 19, Sector 15-A of which the demised premises is an integral part and is in occupation of two rooms, common bath and latrine on the first floor of the house. In addition to this, he has author one room in his occupation on the ground floor which is being used as his drawing room. Landlord also got telephone connection No 22162 installed in the name of his wife Smt. Praam Kaur Brar at this house The petitioner further averred that in fact, the landlord alone is living in the portion of the house which consists of three rooms and so accommodation with him is sufficient as his wife and children have already settled in Canada. The petitioner challenged the averments made by the landlord to the effect that he is residing presently in home No. 3053, Sector 39-D, Chandigarh. The petitioner also raised a plea that it is only five month's before the filing of the present eviction application, two rooms, a kitchen, common bath, latrine and a verandah of the disputed house fell vacant and the same had been let out by the landlord to one Ashok Bhardwaj at an enhanced rate of rent. In this way, the present application is nothing but a ruse to seek eviction of the 'petitioner and thereafter to let out the same at an enhanced rate of rent.

(3.) THE landlord by way of reply averred that he is one of the landlords and is thus entitled to maintain the present application for eviction of the petitioner. It was denied that the accommodation in possession of the petitioner was let out for a commercial purpose and in the alternative it was alleged that the petitioner cannot change the user of the building, the same being admittedly a residential building. Respondent denied that he has any accommodation as alleged as two rooms, common bath, latrine on the first floor or ha is in possession of the room on the ground floor in the demised premises. It was also denied that his wife and children have acquired Canadian citizenship and that he is a green card holder. It was also denied that he is not presently residing in house No. 3053-A, Sector 39-D. Chandigarh. As regards the averment that some portion of the premises in dispute had been let out after having got it vacated it was admitted to the extent that only one room and kitchen fell vacant and same was rented out as he could not reside in one room which otherwise was also on the first floor of the building. The Rent Controller on perusal of the averments made by the petitioner as well as by the respondent, in support of their respective contentions, came to the conclusion that respondent is a 'specified landlord' and the petition has been filed within the stipulated period, i. e within one year from the date of retirement As regards the plea of the present petitioner, that in fact the landlord is in possession of two rooms, common bath, and latrine on the first floor and another room on the ground floor in his occupation, the same was not accepted as correct as the Rent Controller relied upon the statement of the landlord to the effect that he does not live in any part of house No. 19, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh. Resultantly, order of eviction was passed against the petitioner directing him to deliver back the possession within one month from the date of the order.