SHAM ALIAS MAUR Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller whereby permission to contest application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short "the Act") has been declined.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the respondent-landlords filed a petition under section 13-A of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from the premises comprising of house No. 954/2 consisting of two bed rooms, one kitchen, one bath room and one store, of area measuring 51 sq. meters, situated at Mohalla Bhara Mall, Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh. The case set up by the landlords is that the premises in dispute was let out in the later half of the year 1988 to the petitioner with a clear understanding that he would vacate the same on the retirement of Som Nath landlord who was due to retire on June 30, 1990. The rate of rent of the premises was fixed at Rs. 600/- per month excluding electricity/water charges. The respondent/landlord on attaining of the age of superannuation on June 30, 1990, filed a petition u/s 13-A of the Act on the ground that he intends to settle and pass his retired life at his ancestral house at the native town of Mani Majra. He, in fact, made a request through Dharam Pal, his brother, to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises in December, 1989, who is turn assured that he would be vacating and delivering the vacant possession of the premises to them well in advance before the actual retirement of respondent No. 1. The tenant put in appearance, filed an application for leave to defend the case. Specific objection was taken to the effect that, in fact, Dharam Pal let out the premises in dispute in the middle of the year of 1988 and the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between Dharam Pal and Sham. It was further denied that Som Nath was owner of the house bearing No. 954/2 and thus contested the claim of the landlord to be specified landlord. It was further averred that Sh. Som Nath was not owner on the date of retirement and this way petition under section 13-A of the Act is not maintainable. The Rent Controller without framing any specific issue as to whether Som Nath was a specified landlord or whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties decided the application on the basis of documents on record only. No opportunity was afforded to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. This, in fact, is the main grievance of the present petitioner.