DINA NATH GULATI Vs. SANTOKH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of ejectment of the tenant-petitioner passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, on 26-5-1985 on a petition under S.13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as amended by the Amendment Act No. 2 of 1985 (hereinafter called 'the Act') from the ground floor of the house which originally belonged to Dr. Karam Singh Dargon, deceased husband of respondent No. 1, is the subject-matter of dispute in the present revision petition.

(2.) A few facts need mention here. The house in dispute is two-storeyed and was owned by Dr. Karam Singh Dargon. Its ground-floor is occupied as a tenant by Dr. Dina Nath Gulati petitioner and it is admittedly a scheduled building. The first floor was in occupation of Amrik Singh R.W. 1 as a tenant who vacated the same in the month of December, 1980. Dr. Karam Singh Dargon was employed as a Scientist S-3 and Head, Division of Soils and Agronomy at the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal, under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. Prior to his deputation and ultimate absorption in the said Institute, he was an employee of the Punjab Government. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from the service of the Institute with effect from 28-2-1981 as is evident from the office order of even date Ex. A. 1. It is the admitted case that after his retirement Dr. Dargon, his wife and other family members occupied and lived on the first floor of the house in dispute earlier vacated by Amrik Singh R.W. 1. He filed an application dated 26-10-1981 under S.13 of the Act for the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner which was later dismissed without having been decided on merits. While the case of the petitioner is that Dr. Dargon had agreed to sell the house to him vide agreement dated 1-2-1983, marked 'A', the case of respondent No. 1 is that the application for ejectment was not pressed as the petitioner had assured that he would vacate the ground floor of the house. Dr. Dargon along with his wife later left for the U.S.A. to stay there with his sons who are settled and gainfully employed there. An advertisement dated 22-5-1983 marked 'B' appeared in the newspaper, which according to the petitioner, was for letting out first floor of the house in dispute which was lying vacant after Dr. Dargon had left for the U.S.A. Dr. Dargon while in U.S.A. died on 19-4-1983. One of his sons Jasjit Singh, who is respondent No. 2 herein, is employed in a bank. He was earlier posted at Ludhiana. Later he was transferred to some out station but is again alleged to have been reposted at Ludhiana. Smt. Santosh Kaur, widow of Dr. K.S. Dargon, came back from the U.S.A. to reside at Ludhiana. She admittedly reoccupied the first floor of the house. She filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner under S.13 of the Act which is pending. Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985 came into force on 16-11-1985 whereby some provisions beneficial to the landlords, who had retired from Government service or are about to retire, were incorporated in the Act. The relevant provisions so incorporated, which shall come up for discussion in the present case, are reproduced below :-

(3.) Respondent No. 1 claiming herself to be the widow of a specified landlord and respondent No. 2 as the son of a specified landlord filed an application under S.13-A of the Act to recover possession of the ground floor of the house in dispute from the petitioner. On being served with the summons of this application the petitioner applied for leave to defend, which was granted to him by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller did not frame any issues and applied the procedure prescribed for a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, and after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties held that respondent No. 1 had a right to recover possession of the premises in dispute from the petitioner and allowed her application. He, however, held that respondent No. 2, in the presence of respondent No. 1, had no right to file an application under S.13-A ibid and dismissed the application on his behalf. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under the proviso to Sub-Sec. (8) of S.18-A ibid.