RISALDAR SURJIT SINGH Vs. T.N. SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition on behalf of the landlord is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 14.3.1986, whereby the tenant was allowed to contest the ejectment application filed under section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner landlord Risaldar Surjit Singh retired from government service is September, 1962 and he purchased the site in 1967/1969 on which the premises in dispute were constructed in the year 1971-72 and rented out to the tenant T.N. Sood in the year 1973. The landlord by invoking the provisions of section 13-A of the Act, which section was added by virtue of Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985, filed the present ejectment application on 3.1.1986 claiming himself to be a "specified landlord" as defined in clause 2(hh) of the Act. According to the landlord, he being a retired military personnel wanted to settle at Ludhiana in his own house i.e. the house in dispute and as he does not own any other residential accommodation in the urban area concerned, he is entitled to eject his tenant summarily. The tenant contested the said assertain of the landlord and pleaded that was not "specified landlord" as defined under the Act, and, therefore, was not entitled to avail the benefit under section 13-A of the Act. According to the tenant, the landlord retired from military service on 2.9.1962 and purchased the property in dispute in the year 1967/69 and the constructions was raised in the year 1970-71. Thus, according to the tenant, the petitioner is an unborn landlord and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of newly inserted provisions. Moreover, the landlord also filed an ejectment petition earlier on the ground of personal necessity, which was later on dismissed as withdrawn. In that petition, the landlord has made a statement that his children have been settled abroad and that after the decision of that ejectment petition, the petitioner would be leaving for abroad. Thus, according to the tenant, neither the case of the petitioner is covered by newly inserted section 13-A nor the petitioner requires the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation. All these averments were incorporated by the tenant in his affidavit.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner falls within the definition of "specified landlord" as defined in clause 2(hh) of the Act that the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Sohan Singh v. Dhan Raj Sharma, 1983(2) RCR 419; AIR 1984 (Punjab and Haryana) 321, relied upon by the learned Rent Controller was distinguishable as there was no such definition in Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. In any case, argued the learned counsel, that no case was made out for granting the leave to contest the ejectment petition and the discretion exercised by the learned Rent Controller was illegal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no revision petition was competent against the impugned order as the order was discretionary one. Moreover, in the affidavit filed by the tenant it has been specifically asserted that the landlord had no bonafide requirement for residence in the demised premises and thus, the permission has been rightly granted to contest the ejectment petition. It was further argued that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of section 13-A of the Act as he was never the landlord of the demised premises at the time of his retirement. In support of his contention, he referred to a Supreme Court judgment, Mrs. Winifred Ross and another v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and others 1984 (1) RCR 117; AIR 1984 S.C. 458 and Division Bench judgment of this Court, Sohan Singh v. Dhan Raj Sharma (supra).