RAMA ARORA Vs. PRITIM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 14.6.1988 passed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant Mrs. Rama and her co-respondents from the demised premises on the ground floor of the property bearing No. A-1. The applicant Sudarshan Singh died during the pendency of the ejectment application. According to him, he was in occupation of one room and a kitchen on the first floor of the building, while the ground floor was with the tenant which was required for his own use and occupation after his retirement on 15.10.1968 from the Railway Department as he owned and possessed no other suitable accommodation within the local limits of Municipal Corporation of Amritsar. The tenant filed his reply to the said application and sought permission to contest the same. According to the tenant, a fresh tenancy was created in December 1971 whereas the landlord had retired earlier in October 1968. Thus, argued the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act could not be invoked by the landlord as he had retired prior to the tenancy. According to the learned counsel, it was a fit case where permission to contest should have been given. In support of his contention, he referred to Mrs. Winifred Ross and another v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and others, 1988(1) RCR 117 : AIR 1984 Supreme Court 458, and Dr. D.M. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh, (1988-1) PLR 394.