KRISHAN LAL ALIAS KALLA Vs. DES RAJ SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C.R. Nos. 2022 and 2023 of 1987, as the facts are the same in the both the cases.

(2.) THE landlord Des Raj filed an application under Section 13(A) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act') against his tenant Krishan Lal for vacating House No. 8, Street No. DS-11, in Ferozepur City, on the ground of personal necessity as he had retired on 11.12.1975, after attaining the age superannuation. According to the landlord, the accommodation presently in occupation by him and his family members was insufficient to make up their requirements as he has four sons and four daughters who are married and have their own children also. The tenant Krishan Lal was occupying only one room on the ground floor of the residential building, the remaining portion of which was insufficient keeping in view the members of the family. He also filed certificate that he was retired from the Cantonment Board, Ferozepur, on 11.12.1975, after attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, he being the specified landlord under the Act, was entitled to the summary ejectment of his tenant Krishan Lal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner contended that under Section 18(A) of the Act, there was no limitation prescribed for making an application for obtaining leave to contest the ejectment application. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the application filed on 2.1.1987, for obtaining leave to contest could not be dismissed as barred by time. Moreover, argued the learned counsel in the affidavit filed by this client he stated that he was occupying the premises in dispute for the last 30 years as a shop and hence it could not be held to be residential building. Moreover, suitable accommodation was already there with the landlord and hence no petition under Section 13(a) of the Act, was maintainable. In view of the these averments in the affidavit, it was a fit case where leave to contest should have been granted. In support of this contention, he referred to C.R. No. 854 of 1987 decided on 6.8.1987 and C.R. No. 2500 of 1986 decided on 9.12.1986.