DEEPAK SURI Vs. COMMODORE K.S. SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under sub-section (8) of Section 18(A) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 (for brevity 'the Act') by the tenant-petitioner Sh. Deepak Suri, challenges order dated 4.2.2003 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the tenant- petitioner is ordered to be evicted from the ground floor of H.No. 4, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh, within a period of two months. The ejectment application filed by the tenant-petitioner under Section 13-A of the Act has thus been allowed.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the landlord-respondent filed ejectment petition under Section 13-A being R.A. No. 350 of 3.8.1990 on the allegation that he purchased half portion of the demised house on 30.7.1998 and he had sought premature retirement with effect from 31.7.1998. The transfer certificate was issued by the Estate Officer on 31.7.1998. On the allegation that there were triable issues, the High Court vide order dated 14.2.2001 granted leave to contest to the tenant-petitioner. It is also admitted case of the parties that Lt. Col. Anup Singh, the vendor of the property is the father of the landlord-respondent, who is vendee of the half portion of the demised house by the sale deed dated 30.7.1998. It has also been accepted that the landlord-respondent is a specified landlord under Section 2(hh) of the Act, which means that the landlord-respondent was holding a post in connection with the affairs of the U.O.I. It is admitted position that there is relationship of landlord and tenant. While allowing leave to contest, the High Court has specifically ordered that no dispute would be raised by the tenant-petitioner about the status of the landlord-respondent by disputing the validity of the certificate dated 10.8.1997 because the validity of the certificate was admitted in the written statement by the tenant-petitioner. The tenant-petitioner contested the ejectment petition on various grounds inter alia by arguing that the transfer of half portion of the demised house, a day before the retirement of the landlord-respondent was a camouflage and that the landlord-respondent was unlikely to occupy the premises. The afore-mentioned pleas of the tenant-petitioner were dealt by the Rent Controller by making the following observation :-

(3.) MR . Chetan Mittal, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the basic reasons, and objects, which have led to the incorporation of Section 13-A have to be kept in view while interpreting Section 13-A. According to the learned counsel, the hardship of the employees holding a post in connection with the affairs of U.O.I. or of a State was the underlying object when Section 13-A of the Act was enacted. The legislature never contemplated that such a right could be wielded by an unscrupulous landlord by misusing his status as a Government employee to get an order of eviction by purchasing a property few days before his retirement. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Winfred Ross v. Ivy Fonseca, 1984(1) RCR(Rent) 117 (SC) : AIR 1984 SC 459 and argued that the Supreme Court refused to accept the argument that a member of the Armed Forces, who became owner of the rented property after his retirement could successfully eject his tenant. In that case the landlord lost his petition because the Supreme Court felt that a retired military officer, who has no house of his own could purchase a building in occupation of a tenant after his retirement, successfully evict such a tenant on the ground that he needed it for his use, then sell it for a price and he could again acquire a building and deal with it in the same way. The learned counsel has also pointed out that in his application seeking premature retirement dated 7.11.1997 with effect from 31.7.1998, the reason for seeking premature retirement specified by the landlord-respondent is that he wanted to generate more income in order to pay instalment of a flat, which he had purchased in Bombay and for that purpose wanted to say at Bombay. According to the learned counsel, this disclosure by the landlord-respondent further shows that he is likely to stay in Bombay and would have no objection to occupy the demised premises in Chandigarh.