RAM KRISHAN CHHOKAR Vs. JAGMOHAN SINGH AHLUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which has cropped up for adjudication is whether an Advocate can be evicted from a scheduled building by a specified landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, and can such a tenant claim un-ejectable tenancy ? The history of the case is that there is a House No. 1199, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, the ownership of which has changed from Smt. Rajinder Kaur Bains to Sh. Om Parkash Goel, Sr. Advocate and then to Sh. Jagmohan Singh Ahluwalia, present respondent. However, Sh. Ram Krishan Chhokar remained the tenant of the above named persons. Smt. Rajinder Kaur Bains and Sh. Om Parkash Goel had filed rent applications seeking eviction of the petitioner unsuccessfully. Thereafter, the third owner of the house Sh. Jagmohan Singh Ahluwalia had also filed rent application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, applicable to Chandigarh (hereinafter called the 'Rent Act') for ejectment of the petitioner from House No. 1199, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, claiming that he was specified landlord and had purchased the said house from its owner Shri Om Parkash Goel on 16.4.1994 when the respondent was in service. The respondent-landlord was serving as D.L.M./Loco Inspector at Sabarmati (Ahmedabad) in Western Railway and was due to retire on May 31, 1994. As mentioned earlier, prior to retirement the abovesaid Jagmohan Singh Ahluwalia had filed the application on 24.9.1993 which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the petition under Section 13-A of the Rent Act was accepted and application of the petitioner for leave to contest was rejected. The petitioner, who is a practising lawyer at Chandigarh has filed a civil revision under Section 13-A (8) of the Rent Act challenging the order dated 11.1.1994. The petition was filed by the respondent on 24.9.1993 duly supported by an affidavit to the effect that he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Chandigarh and he requires the accommodation for his own occupation and also supported by a certificate issued by the Railway Administration that he would be retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.1994.

(2.) THE Motion Bench admitted the Civil Revision and ordered its final hearing on April 11, 1994, keeping in view the date of superannuation of the respondent on May 31, 1994 and the dispossession of the petitioner was stayed during the pendency of the revision petition vide order dated 17.3.1994.

(3.) BESIDES the aforementioned pleas the petitioner also argued that the respondent/landlord was not specified landlord. He was not issued a certificate by the competent authority and the ownership of the respondent/landlord was not properly proved and he was a dummy person and the sale was benami et cetera. The petitioner broadly based his case on the principle of res judicata, bar created by Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, lis pendens and that Smt. Rajinder Kaur Bains could not confer a Letter title on Mr. Om Parkash Goel as the petitioner was un-ejectable tenant. So Mr. Goel also could not confer a better title on the respondent accordingly.