GURBIR KAUR Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Singh son of Jawala Singh resident of Chandigarh had filed a petition under Section 13-A of the: Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for the eviction of Gurbir Kaur wife and Rajbir Singh son of Mahabir Singh Sidhu, tenants from house No. 96, Phase 3b1, S. A. S. Nagar (Mohali), Tehsil Mohali, District Ropar. The Rent Controller, Kharar, vide its judgment dated May 22, 1996 allowed the petition by holding that the petitioner has proved himself to be a specified landlord and issued directions that the petitioner be put in possession thereof. The tenants are aggrieved against the judgment of learned Rent Controller and have filed the present Revision Petition for the setting aside of the judgment of learned Rent Controller.

(2.) THE judgment of the Rent Controller has been assailed on the ground that the landlord had retired as Superintendent Grade-I Economic and Statistic Organisation, Punjab, Chandigarh on 30. 4. 1992 whereas the petition under Section 13-A of the Act has been filed on 20. 1. 1996 i. e. after lapse of about years of his retirement. In case the landlord required the property for his self use, he should have filed the case under General Law by service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) MR . Arun Jain, while rebutting the arguments of counsel for the tenants has argued that the Punjab Government had issued notification dated 9. 2. 1984 whereby the provisions of the Act were made applicable to the Urban Area of Mohali with effect from 1. 4. 1995. Earlier, Urban Area administered by the Notified Area Committee of Mohali was exempt from the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 from 28. 12. 1983 till 31. 3. 1995. Under Section 13-A of the Act, a specified landlord can apply within one year after the date of retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the Act whichever is later. The counsel contends that the petition filed by the landlord on 20. 1. 1996 is within one year of the date of commencement of the Act. The counsel further contends that these are summary proceedings and Section 13-A has been enacted for the benefit of the retiring employee. The counsel further argued that mere increase in the rent does not create any fresh tenancy as the fresh tenancy can be created by bilateral agreement. Lastly, Mr. Jain has argued that this Court in revisional jurisdiction is to interfere if there is patently illegality or irregularity in the judgment which has not been pointed out by the counsel for the tenants. In support of his arguments, the counsel has cited "surjit Singh Arora v. Harbans Singh, (1989-1)95 P. L. R. 6 and Dr. S. M. Nehra v. D. D. Malik, (1990-1)97 P. L. R. 486.