PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. KASHMIR SINGH BHULLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order Civil Revision Nos. 1905 and 1906 of 1996 are being decided.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that the landlord-petitioner-respondent filed ejectment petition Under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 199 (in short the 'act') for respondent-petitioners' ejectment from the demised premises comprising basement, ground floor and first floor of House No. 1926, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh alleging that he is a specified landlord under Clause (hh) of Section 2 of the Act. The premises was demised to the respondent-petitioners under lease deed dated 22. 9. 1983 wherein respondent No. l through respondents 2 and 3 has been earlier running its branch and now has shifted the said branch to another premises in Sector 34, Chandigarh but has not vacated the premises. Petitioner-respondent is a public servant being a Member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service and is going to retire on 31. 5. 1996. The second floor of the demised house comprising of only two rooms and a store is in possession of the petitioner's son who is a practising lawyer and is living therein with his wife and daughter. The applicant-respondent-landlord is not in possession of sufficient accommodation and wants to settle at Chandigarh after his retirement and needs the demised premises for his own use and occupation. At present, he is posted at Bhatinda as Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Bhatinda. 2. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent-petitioners, who filed the petition to grant leave to defend the petition on various grounds. It was alleged that sufficient accommodation is available with the landlord, who is not a specified landlord. It was also averred that the applicant-respondent-landlord has also filed the civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-petitioners from running a branch of the bank and misusing the premises in dispute, that is, for using the same for the purpose other than the residential. Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code was also filed in the civil suit which was declined by the trial Court. The said civil suit is also pending in the Court of the Rent Controller. The civil suit is fixed for evidence. The applicant-respondent- landlord is misusing the process of law having filed the civil suit. He is estopped from filing this rent application.

(3.) BY the impugned order passed on 17. 4. 1996 leave to defend was declined on the ground that the petitioner-landlord is a specified landlord. His only two rooms on the second floor are in possession of petitioner's son. Considering the status of the petitioner-landlord and his family, the accommodation with him is not suitable for his and his family members residence. The Rent Controller observed that there are no triable issues and there is no merit in the application for leave to defend. Hence, the petition was declined.