KUSHAL TAKHAR Vs. GURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS . Kushal Takhar widow of late Ajaib Singh aggrieved against two orders passed by Rent Controller, Chandigarh on the same date i.e. 19.7.2008 has filed the present revision petition. On 19.7.2008, Rent Controller declined the application filed by the petitioner-respondent under Section 18-A(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Act') seeking leave to defend the eviction petition preferred by the respondent-landlord, Annexure P-1. After the leave to defend was declined, on the same day, eviction petition was allowed and petitioner-tenant was ordered to be evicted from the tenanted premises i.e. entire ground floor of House No. 94, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh. A prayer has been made in the present petition that both orders whereby leave to defend was declined and eviction was ordered, be set aside.

(2.) ALL material pleadings necessary for adjudication have been annexed with this petition as Annexures P-1 to P-5 along with another affidavit filed in pursuance to order of this Court dated 12.11.2008. Facts can be gathered from the annexures and the impugned orders and after hearing the parties, the present revision petition can be disposed off.

(3.) TO controvert these facts, application under Section 18-A(5) of the Act was filed, in which it was stated that house was purchased on 1.2.2005 by the landlord knowing fully well that petitioner is tenant on the ground floor, only in order to dispossess her. It was stated that he never remained posted in Chandigarh and he has got sufficient property at Noida and other places which has not been disclosed in the petition. Earlier to purchase of demised premises, landlord bought and sold property in Sector 18, Chandigarh. He has got sufficient accommodation, therefore, leave to contest the petition on merit was sought. Reply to application for leave to defend was filed, in which landlord stated that after selling his ancestral land in village Balongi, District Mohali in March, 2004, he bought House No. 167, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh on 28.3.2004. Lateron it dawned upon the landlord that house is to be demolished and rebuilt because of large scale seepage in the main walls of the house. Therefore, that house was sold on 27.7.2004 and demised house was purchased on 1.2.2005. It was further stated that the accommodation on the first floor and second floor alone is neither suitable nor sufficient. It was further averred therein that the younger son who is a Banker plans to return to India in 2009 to set up his own consultancy in Chandigarh and the elder son who is an Electrical Engineer proposes to return to Chandigarh to set up his own house in next 2 to 3 years. Details of proposed marriage of elder son were also given.