JAGDISH PURI Vs. KUNDAN LAL THAPER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed at the instance of the tenant whose ejectment has been ordered by the Rent Controller, under the provisions of Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act ). The respondent-landlord retired as a Superintendent in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, on attaining the age of superannuation on September 30, 1993. The respondent claiming to be a specified landlord, filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act on January 20, 1987 praying that one room in the demised premises which was under the tenancy of the petitioner, was required for his need on account of his extended family. The Rent Controller denied leave to defend the application as envisaged under Section 1. 8-A of the Act. This order of the Rent Controller, was set aside and leave to defend granted by this Court vide order dated April 5, 1990 passed in Civil Revision No. 3714 of 1989. The parties, therefore, adduced evidence and the stand of the tenant petitioner primarily was that the accommodation with the respondent in the same premises was sufficient for his need. The Rent Controller however allowed the application primarily on the ground that it was not for the Rent Controller acting under Section 13-A of the Act to go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the accommodation available with the landlord and his ipse-dixit was to be accepted. The objection of the petitioner that the premises in dispute had been rented out for a commercial purpose and, therefore, Section 13-A, was not applicable, was repelled in the light of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Mittal v. B. M. Sikka,1 (1986-1)89 P. L. R. 1 (F. B. ). It has been conceded before me by the learned counsel for the parties that the Rent Controller did not go into the question of suitability of accommodation that was in possession of the landlord-respondent, which was a pre-requisite for ordering the ejectment under Section 13-A of the Act. Mr. A. K. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, argued that this would be a fit case where the Rent Controller should be called upon to weigh the evidence which is available on the file so that it can be determined as to whether the accommodation in possession of the landlord-respondent, was suitable to his needs or not, and for that purpose, the case be remanded to the Rent Controller. Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent has, however, urged that it would be in the interest of justice keeping in view the fact that almost six years have elapsed since the petition under Section 13-A was filed that this Court, should go into the evidence itself and to arrive at its conclusion.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I deem it proper that the Rent Controller should called upon to redecide the matter on a consideration of the evidence and come to a conclusion so that the suitability of the accommodation with the landlord-respondent can be adjudged.

(3.) THIS petition is, accordingly, allowed the order of the Rent Controller, is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision in the light of the observations made above who would decide the matter within a period of two weeks after the receipt of the order of this Court and the relevant record. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, on December 16, 1993.