KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. LAJWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel contended that the Rent Controller while passing the impugned order has relied on Risaldar Surjit Singh v. T. N. Sood, (1987-1)91 P. L. R. 326 and Dr. D. M. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh, (1988-1)93 P. L. R. 394 (S. C.) but has failed to notice the point of distinction that in both these cases after the landlord retired, he inducted the tenant in the demised premises and on that count, it was held that as he is not specified landlord qua the demised premises and the tenant, he cannot claim his ejectment under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Amendment) Act, 1985.

(2.) IN my considered view, the contention is devoid of any force. In Risaldar Surjit Singh's case (supra), the landlord retired from government service in 1962 and he purchased the site in 1967/1969 on which premises in dispute were constructed in the year 1971-72 and thereafter, he rented it out to the tenant in the year 1973. No doubt, this fact was there in that case that the premises was rented out to the tenant in 1973, but a single Bench of this Court has held that petitioner-landlord was never a landlord within the meaning of Section 2 (c) read with Section 2 (bb) of the Act on the date of his retirement. He relied on Ajmer Singh v. Ranjit Singh, (1986-2)90 P. L. R. 666, wherein Division Bench Judgment of his Court, Sohan Singh v. Dan Raj Sharma A. I. R. 1984 (Punjab and Haryana) 321 was relied upon. It is clearly held that the sine qua-non for taking benefit of Section 13-A of the Act for those who had retired is that one must be a landlord at the time of his retirement qua the premises from which eviction is being sought. If he is so and had retired before the coming into force of the amendment Act (Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985), he can exercise his right to get the tenant evicted under the summary procedure within one year of the coming into force of the amendment Act and if he is in service when the amendment Act had come into force he can exercise that right within one year prior to his retirement as well as within one year after his retirement.

(3.) IN Mrs. Winifred Ross and Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and Ors. , A. I. R. 1984 (SC) 458, the landlord retired from the Indian Army in 1967. The property of which suit building forms a part originally belonged to his mother-in-law. She gifted the said property in favour of her daughter, Mrs. Winifred Ross the wife of the landlord, on November 9, 1976. On June 6, 1977, Mrs. Winifred Ross made a gift of the portion occupied by the tenant in favour of the landlord. Landlord filed the petition under Section 13-A1 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which is pari-materia to Section 13-A of the Act. The Apex Court held that the word 'landlord' used in Section 13-A1- referred to an office of the Union, who was a landlord either before or on the date of his retirement from the defence service of the Union. It was held that the plaintiff could not avail the provisions of Section 13-A1 to recover from the tenant possession of the building which he acquired after his retirement.