SOHAN LAL Vs. UTTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 18-A(8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') prays for quashing order dated 15.3.2002 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar. The Rent Controller has dismissed an ejectment petition filed by the landlord- petitioner under Section 13-A of the Act being a 'specified landlord' within the meaning of Section 2(hh). The landlord-petitioner had filed the ejectment petition on 17.9.1997 claiming that he was a specified landlord being a retiree from the Punjab State Electricity Board (for brevity 'the Board'). It was asserted that he had retired on 31.12.1996. It was further pleaded that he did not own and possess any suitable accommodation for the residential purpose within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar and he intended to reside at 86-B, Guru Nagar, Jalandhar. The demised premises has been on rent with the tenant-respondent. The landlord-petitioner prayed for his eviction on the ground of personal bona fide necessity. It was further asserted that there is one room and one kitchen in house No. 86-B, Guru Nagar, Jalandhar, which is on rent with another tenant namely Gurnam Singh. The family of the landlord-petitioner comprises of his wife and two sons. One of his son is M.B.B.S. and the other one has qualified Pharmacist course. The tenant-respondent contested the petition by raising the objection that the landlord-petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act. It was alleged that in fact he wanted to increase the rent and the ground of bona fide necessity has been devised later on. It was further alleged that the landlord-petitioner did not disclose the reason of his shifting to Jalandhar nor he disclosed the business of his sons. The relationship of landlord and tenant was, however, admitted. The tenant- respondent has also alleged that the landlord-petitioner owns another property namely 86-E, Guru Nagar, Jalandhar and he has failed to disclose the same before the Rent Controller. Claiming that the landlord-petitioner has sufficient accommodation for him and his family, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. The Rent Controller found that the landlord- petitioner did not require the demised premises for his bona fide personal necessity and recorded the following findings :-

(2.) THE other ground for dismissal of the ejectment petition is that the landlord-petitioner has failed to prove his status as a specified landlord. The retirement certificate Ex. A-1 has not been accepted as sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirement of Section 13-A read with Section 2(hh) of the Act. It has also been held that the landlord-petitioner had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13-A of the Act inasmuch as no affidavit in support of the petition was filed.

(3.) ANOTHER submission made by the learned counsel is that the Rent Controller could not have taken into consideration the accommodation situated at Village Mandali because that accommodation did not fall within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar and the same would not constitute a suitable accommodation within the meaning of expression local area as used in Section 13-A and, therefore, the finding that the landlord-petitioner is in possession of sufficient accommodation could not be sustained.