LAWS(P&H)-1993-5-30

J D MATHUR Vs. SUNITA ALIAS SUNITA MADHOK

Decided On May 11, 1993
J D MATHUR Appellant
V/S
SUNITA ALIAS SUNITA MADHOK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against the order of Rent Controller refusing him premission to contest the application filed by the respondent under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') as made applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh.

(2.) THE respondent landlady claiming herself to be 'specified landlord' sought eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground that portion Mark B which has been described as ABCD in the map attached with the petition has fallen to her share on the basis of Civil Court decree dated 15th June, 1989. Either she had been serving in the Punjab Education Department and finally retired as Youth Welfare Officer on 31st October, 1990. Presently she is in occupation of one room and one chowkidar's room which accommodation is not suitable to her requirement and status. She does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the urban area of Chandigarh. She further averred that notice has already been served upon the tenant which has been received back with the report that he was not available.

(3.) THE tenant put in appearance and sought permission of the Rent Controller in terms of Section 18-A of the Act to contest the petition on merits. Various grounds were urged by the tenant seeking leave to contest, namely, (i) the landlady is not 'specified landlord'; (ii) the present petition has not filed within one year from the date of her retirement; (iii) there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; and (iv) that the civil court decree dated 15th June, 1989 suffered by Smt. Kamla Madhok is collusive and suffered by her solely with a view to seek eviction of the petitioner tenant as her previous attempt in this regard has not been proved to be fruitful. Even the petition filed by Baldev Madhok, brother of the landlady, met with the same fate. In support of this contention the tenant relied upon number of documents including the previous judgments, affidavits, etc.