KHUSHI RAM SOOD Vs. MUNESHWAR LAL KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 12.5.1994 of the Rent Controller whereby he has dismissed the application of the tenant for leave to defend and has ordered his eviction on an application filed by the landlord Under Sec. 13 -A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act).

(2.) The premises in dispute were previously owned by one Sh. Amrit Lal Gupta from whom landlord -Muneshwar Lal Kaushal (respondent herein) purchased the same for Rs. 70,000/ - vide sale -deed dated 27.9.1993. At the time of purchase, the house in dispute was already in possession of the petitioner as tenant. After the purchase, respondent got issued registered notice dated 6.10.1993 to the petitioner intimating the fact that he has purchased the premises from the original landlord and requested to attorn to him. Application for ejectment of the petitioner Under Sec. 13 of the 1949 Act was filed on 23.12.1993 on the averments that respondent who was an employee of Jammu and Kashmir Minerals Limited (J & K Govt. Undertaking) Precast Concrete Factory, Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana (Jammu) has retired on 30.11.1993 and therefore, has a right to recover immediate possession of the house. The respondent averred in his petition that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Municipal Committee, Kharar, other than the house for which petition has been filed. Tenant after service of the summons, filed an application seeking leave to defend the ejectment petition inter -alia on the grounds; that the sale -deed executed by Amrit Lal Gupta in favour of the petitioner is sham transaction and has been prepared just to make a ground for ejectment; and that the landlord is permanent resident of Rupnagar and he has no concern at Kharar and he is conniving with Amrit Lal Gupta just to harass the respondent. On 7.5.1994 when the application for leave to defend was fixed for arguments, petitioner filed an affidavit dated 6.5.1994 in support of his application for leave to defend. On consideration of the application the Rent Controller found that the application for leave to defend moved by the petitioner does not disclose the facts that would disentitle the landlord to obtain an order for recovery of possession of the demised premises and accordingly, the application for above of ejectment was passed against the petitioner giving him three months to vacate the premises. In this revision petition, tenant is impugning this order of the Rent Controller.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Rent Controller erred in concluding that non -filing of affidavit along with application seeking leave to defend was fatal to the application even though the affidavit was filed afterwards. He contended that the view taken by the Rent Controller runs contrary to the ratio of judgment of this Court in Giani Karnail Singh v/s. Bachan Singh, 1990 2 P.L.R. 276. He also contended that respondent has failed to show that he is a specified landlord entitled to move petition Under Sec. 13 -A of the 1949 Act. His precise argument was that the landlord invoking the provisions of Sec. 13 -A of the 1949 Act must aver and show that he has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of the State'. According to him, as per averments made in the petition the respondent has only averred that he was an employee of Jammu and Kashmir Minerals Limited, Jammu and therefore, on these averments he cannot claim the status of a specified landlord.