SHRI FATEH CHAND VERMA Vs. SHRI BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 25.10.1986 where by in a petition filed under Sec. 13 -A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (for short the Act) leave to contest was granted and. It was further held that the landlord was not a "specified landlord" as defined therein.

(2.) Admittedly, the landlord -Petitioner was in the employment of the New Delhi Municipal Committee from where he retired with effect from 31.8.1984 as Assistant Secretary (Inquiry). Claiming himself to be a specified landlord as defined under Sec. 2 (hh) of the Act, he moved ejectment application on 7.11.1986 against his tenant Balbir Singh from the house in dispute alleging that he has retired from the service and needs the demised premises for his bona fide personal necessity. When the notice was served on the tenant, he filed an application under Sec. 18 -A (5) of the Act for the grant of permission to contest the application. He took up the plea that the landlord had no necessity and is not in need of the house in dispute. He is permanently residing at Delhi where he owns a residential house. Further, the landlord also owns another suitable residential accommodation at Malerkotla Besides he is not a "specified landlord" within the meaning of the Act and the tenant was, therefore, not entitled to ejectment.

(3.) According to the learned Rent Controller, New Delhi Municipal Committee is neither a State Government nor Central Government, and, therefore, the landlord could not be said to be a "specific landlord" as defined under the Act. It was further found that the tenant has brought on the record through his affidavit that the landlord is a permanent resident of New Delhi and he has a residential accommodation there as well and an other suitable accommodation at Malerkotla and the landlord has failed to rebut that affidavit. In these circumstances, leave to contest was granted