SURAJ BHAN Vs. JOGINDER SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') has been preferred by the tenant-petitioner and it challenges order dated 23.7.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Sangrur directing ejectment of the tenant-petitioner by accepting the prayer made by the landlord-respondent who had retired from service on 31.12.1999 as an Agricultural Officer (Development) from Patiala under the Punjab Government. The Rent Controller has found that documents concerning his retirement produced by the landlord-respondent have been proved as Exs. P-1 to P-3 by the concerned official of the department. Even no plea in the written statement was taken by the tenant-petitioner controverting the issuance of retirement certificate or that it was not issued by a competent authority. Therefore, it has been found that the landlord-respondent is a 'specified landlord' under Section 13-A of the Act. No dispute with regard to the aforementioned findings have been raised before me.

(2.) THE other findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller are that there is a family settlement dated 14.2.1983 and the judgment concerning family settlement in Civil Suit No. 70 dated 23.4.1983, decided on 6.8.1983 titled as 'Rajinder Sarup Bhalla v. Amar Chand' has been proved as Ex. P-6 and along with decree sheet Ex. P-7. It has also been held that the filing of earlier petition on 8.9.1995 for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation which was dismissed on 2.12.1998 did adversely affect the right of the landlord- respondent to invoke special provisions for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner under Section 18-A of the Act which might be in the nature of res judicata or constructive res judicata. The reason is not far to seek because the petition was filed by the father of the landlord-respondent on 8.9.1995. After his death, the landlord-respondent has stepped into the shoes of his father and the petition was dismissed on 2.12.1998. It is, thus, obvious that the landlord-respondent had not by then acquired the right to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Act because he retired on 31.12.1999 and he could have filed the petition within one year preceding his retirement and within one year after his retirement. Even otherwise, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Rent Controller would be completely misplaced because the building was not found to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that this petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. There are categorical findings that the landlord-respondent is a 'specified landlord' which have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner. The landlord-respondent has retired from the Agriculture Department, Punjab on 31.12.1999 where he was working as an Agricultural Officer. In this regard the statement of Narsingh Lal PW-2 is worth notice, who in his affidavit stated that the landlord-respondent was retired on 31.12.1999 from the Punjab Government and he referred to order No. 3/5/99-Kha ba-1(4) 17898 dated 24.12.1999. He also referred to order dated 31.12.1999 and his PPO No. 127768/PB. The retirement certificate was sent by Narsingh Lal PW-2 which had been issued by Sh. Narinder Singh Dhillon, the then Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala. The witness duly identified the signatures of Sh. Narinder Singh Dhillon as he has seen Sh. Dhillon signing in his official capacity. Those documents were exhibited as Exs. P-1, P-2 and P-3. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of aforesaid evidence has recorded the following findings :-