PUSHPA Vs. GURBAX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-landlords had filed this petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, "the Act") averring that the house in question was taken on rent by Darshan Lal (since deceased) at the rate of Rs. 110/- per month. The petitioners, being legal heirs of Darshan Lal, were stated to be in possession of the house in question situated at Banga. They were in possession of the portion of the house and their eviction was sought on the ground that respondent Gurbax Singh had retired from service of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board on 30.4.2005. Thereafter, he intends to settle permanently at Banga Town and as such, needed the accommodation for his and use of his married son, who is further blessed with a son. Necessary averment that except for this house, the landlords did not have any other residential house in Banga Town and have not vacated any residential house in the Banta Town etc. were also made. The ground of building being unfit was also raised to seek eviction of the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners appearing in response to the notice raised certain preliminary objections, mainly, regarding non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of material facts. Otherwise the relationship of landlords and tenants was admitted and it was pleaded that the petitioners being legal heirs of Darshan Lal had inherited this tenancy. The fact that Gurbax Singh, respondent, had retired from service was disputed and so too the need of the premises for his personal use. It was submitted that the landlord was residing in Himachal Pradesh where he has build his own house and none of his family member ever lived in the part of a house, which is in occupation of the petitioners as tenants. It is further pleaded that required ingredients of Section 13-A of the Act are not fulfilled. The assertion in regard to the building being unfit and unsafe was also denied.

(3.) MR . Vikas Bahl, learned counsel for the petitioners, has attacked the finding basically on three grounds. He would first contend that the order of retirement as produced on record is issued by Secretary, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, and as such, would be invalid on the ground that appointing authority of respondent, Gurbax Singh, was Chief Engineer and, thus, the aspect of retirement was not properly established from the evidence and documents placed on record. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the case of Punjab and Sind Bank and others v. Kashmir Singh Bhullar, 1996(1) RCR(Rent) 671 (P&H). This was a case where landlord was a member of P.C.S Judicial and sought ejectment of the tenant on the strength of a certificate of retirement issued by Registrar of the High Court. This Court held that certificate not to be valid on the ground that his appointing/removing authority is the State Government and that the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant was required to produce a certificate of retirement, which ought to be signed by the person who was competent to remove him from service. It is on this basis submitted before me that the certificate of retirement, as produced, would not be a valid certificate to be taken into consideration to entertain this petition under Section 13-A of the Act.