JASWANT RAI JAIN Vs. SURINDERPAL SINGH BHUTTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is a revision petition challenging the order dated 23-8-96 of the Rent Controller vide which the objection petition filed by the father of the Judgment-debtor in execution proceedings was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that respondent No. 1-Col. Surinderpal Singh Bhuttal is the owner of House No. 1013 Sector 27-B, Chandigarh, which is occupied by respondent No. 2-Rakesh Jain son of Jaswant Rai Jain, the petitioner. Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhutal was in the service of Indian Army and retired as Colonel on 21-2-1995. After his retirement he presented a petition on March 28, 1995 before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh supported by an affidavit for eviction of respondent No. 2 Rakesh Jain-tenant by contending that after his retirement from Indian Army, he bona fide requires the premises let out to respondent-Rakesh Jain for residential purposes and he wanted to settle down at Chandigarh permanently along with his widowed mother and other family members. He pleaded that he' has to vacate the government accommodation and has no other suitable accommodation of his own in the local area of Union Territory at Chandigarh where he could reside with his family. After the aforementioned petition was presented by respondent-Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhuttal, the respondent-tenant Rakesh Jain appeared in response to the summons and on April 7, 1995 made an application Under Section 18-A (4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') supported by an affidavit praying for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition presented by Col. Bhuttal. In the said application seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, respondent-tenant Rakesh Jain stated that the certificate of retirement produced by the appellant was bogus and fabricated as he continued to be in service and therefore, he did not fall in the category of a specified Landlord within the meaning of Section 2 (hh) so as to entitle him to make an application for eviction Under Section 13-A of the Act. Respondent-Rakesh Jain further stated*that in fact Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhuttal wanted to enhance the rent to Rs. 15,000.00 per month which was not acceded to by him and that Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhuttal had entered into an agreement with Mohit Nanda resident of House No. 2208, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh for sale of the house in question for sum of Rs. 15 lacs and had agreed to deliver vacant possession of the house in question after getting it vacated from Rakesh Jain. The Landlord Col. Bhuttal refuting the allegation of the agreement for kale of the house stated that no such agreement has been executed by him for sale of the house in question to Mohit Nanda as alleged by the respondent-tenant.

(3.) THE High Court vide its order dated 28-11-1995 set-aside the order dated 30-9-1995 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh rejecting the application of the tenant filed Under Section 18-A (4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the 'the Act') seeking leave to defend the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. This order dated 28-11-1995 of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court of India. Ultimately, vide judgment dated 9-4-1996 the Hon'ble Supreme court of India accepted the appeal of the landlord and set-aside the order dated 28-11-1995 of the High Court and the order of the Rent Controller was restored. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed the Rent Controller to proceed with the eviction petition of the landlord and dispose of the same in accordance with the law at the earliest.