SHAM DASS Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHAN Lal, respondent, purchased evacuee property, that is, a building comprised of the shops and the upper storey, from the Rehabilitation Department and a sale certificate, Exhibit A/1, dated July 4, 1966, was issued in his favour. Thereafter, half of the upper storey was purchased by one Sunder Dass from him. Before the purchase from the Rehabilitation Department, Sham Dass, petitioner, was the allottee of the upper storey on a monthly rent of Rs. 10 according to the respondent, and Rs. 15 according to the petitioner. Under Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (hereinafter called the Compensation Act), the petitioner became tenant of the above mentioned two landlords. Both the respondent in this revision petition and Sunder Dass filed separate eviction applications against the petitioner on the ground inter alia that the premises, in dispute, were in dilapidated condition and were unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petitioner contested both the petitions and inter alia averred that the eviction petition in each case was not maintainable as the same had been filed before the expiry of two years from the date of the purchase by Krishan Lal, respondent, from the Rehabilitation Department, that notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, (hereinafter called the Act), had not been served and that the premises, in dispute, were quit fit and safe. On the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were framed. The Rent Controller held that the notice under Section 10 of the act, was imperative, that the petition under Section 29 of the Compensation Act, had been filed before the expiry of two years and as such, the petitions were not maintainable. It was also held that the condition of premises, in dispute, was such that the same cannot be held to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The eviction applications were consequently dismissed. In appeal, the landlord respondent succeeded and all the three findings by the Rent Controller were reversed by the Appellate Authority. Consequently, order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. Against the two orders of the Rent Controller in the two eviction applications, separate appeals had been filed and were disposed of by separate orders. Against them, the present petitioner has also filed two separate revisions. The present revision petition is against Krishan Lal, landlord and Civil Revision No. 536 of 1975 was filed by him against Sunder Dass, landlord.

(2.) MR . Sachdeva, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has addressed arguments in the other revision petition so far as the questions relation to the notice under Section 106 of the Act and the maintainability of the eviction application before the expiry of two years were concerned. I have dealt with these questions in detail in the other revision petition, that is, Civil Revision No. 536 of 1975, and will be just a repetition to reproduced the contention and my delis on thereon in this judgment. It would suffice to hold that in the present case, eviction application was filed under Section to hold that in the present case, eviction application was filed under SEction 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Rent Act and according to the law settled by a latest decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Harbans Singh Azad, 1977(1) RCR 253 (F.B) the issuance of a notice under Section 106 of the Act, was not necessary. On the second question it is held that the eviction application could be filed before the expiry of two years from the date of purchase of the premises, in dispute, by the landlords from the Rehabilitation Department and the only requirement of Section 29 of the Compensation Act, is that the order of ejectment has to be passed after the expiry of two years.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , no infirmity can be found with the conclusion of the Appellate Authority. In view of the same, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed with costs. The petitioner may vacate the premises within one month. Revision dismissed.