RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. NAUHRIA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller whereby the petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended by Act No. 2 of 1985, was allowed and the tenant was ordered to be rejected.

(2.) THE respondent retired from the Irrigation Department, Punjab on 31st March, 1962. The tenanted premises were let out to the petitioner on 1st September, 1977 on rent of Rs. 125/- per month. Petition for ejectment of the tenant was filed on 6th November, 1986. In the petition it was stated that the respondent is a 'specified landlord' and is thus entitled to eject the tenant.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to succeed. The petitioner retired on 31st March, 1962 whereas the premises were let out to the tenant on Ist September, 1977. The respondent thus was not a 'specified landlord' qua the premises on the date of his retirement from the service entitling to avail of the benefit of the provisions of section 13-A of the Act. This matter is now squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh, 1988(1) Rent Control Reporter 177 : 1988 HRR 307, wherein it was held that where landlord retired from service before the premises were let out, he cannot be considered as 'specified landlord' under section 2(hh) of the Act and the benefit of summary trial under section 13-A cannot be availed of by the landlord. The landlord has to be 'specified landlord' on the date of the retirement.