SATYA PARKASH MEHTA ADVOCATE Vs. MELA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition under Section 18-A (8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act No. II of 1985 (for short the Act) against the eider of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, dated 21-2-1991 whereby the petition filed under section 12-A of the Act was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the petitioner filed a petition under section 13-A of the Act on the ground that he is a specified landlord as defined under section 13-A of the Act as amended by Act No. II of 198 5 (Punjab ). As per averment made by the petitioner, he retired from Punjab Government service as Prosecuting Inspector on 22 4-1971. He further averred that ever since his retirement he is practising as an Advocate He is a member of the Julandhar Bar Association since 1971. Presently, he is living at Amritsar for want of proper accommodation in Talandhar city where he intends to reside. It has further been averred that the petitioner does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in Jalandhar City and so require the premises in dispute for his personal bona fide needs. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Rent Controller, the respondent put in appearance and prayed for grant of leave to contest the application on the grounds (i) that the application has not been given bona fide but it is mala fide in content. The petitioner does not require the premises in dispute bona fide for his residence. He has not filed correct, site plan as the site plan attached does not show the house of the petitioner which is on (he east of the disputed premises. According to the respondent, the house in possession of the petitioner consists of four rooms, deori and a varandah on the ground floor and at least three habitable chubaras on the first floor. This information has been withheld as else it would be proved that' the petitioner has sufficient accommodation ; (ii) that the petitioner is residing in a new locality at Jalandhar after his retirement for the last more than 15 years. The petitioner never occupied any portion of the building which is lying vacant and the fact that vital information has been withheld is itself a ground to disentitle the petitioner to seek eviction of the respondent under section 13-A of the Act. (iii) Despite having retired in the year 1971, the present application has only been filed in the year 19 6; (iv) that the entire building is in a dilapidated condition and to seek eviction from such a building the appropriate remedy is under section 13 of the Act and not under section 13-A of the Act ; (v) that after retirement the petitioner has rented cut a portion of the building consisting of five rooms to Narider Kumar which clearly proves that he does not need the premises in dispute for living. Lastly not only this, only a year back the petitioner has rented out three rooms adjoining the portion to the disputed premises to one Ravi Kumar.

(3.) THE petitioner denied that the present application has been filed mala fidely. In fact. the petitioner highlighted that the ambit and scope of section 13 (3) (a) and section 13-A are quite different. In the former, the words used are "requires for his own occupation" whereas in the latter section i. e. 13-A the words used are "intends to reside" and this way relieves a landlord of the necessity, to prove his requirement of the premises. It was urged that the provision of Section 13-A of the Act. provides for imposition of stiff penalty of six months imprisonment in case the landlord fails to occupy the premises for a continuous period of three months after eviction and the tenant can also apply for restoration of the premises The factum of having let out some portion of the building after retirement, was denied The Rent Controller after hearing learned l-counsel for the parties allowed the application of the tenant under section 18 A (5) of the Act by order dated 16-1-1987. The observation, of the Rent Controller" while allowing this application is as under: