GURDARASHAN SINGH MAN Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil revision has been referred for the decision of a Division Bench to resolve conflict of single bench decision of this Court with regard to rights of a specified landlord for summary eviction under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act). In the two earlier decisions reported as Ajmer Singh v. Ranjit Singh, 1986(2) RCR 564 : 1986(2) P.L.R. 66 and Risaldar Surjit Singh v. T.N. Sood, 1987(1) RCR 519 : 1987(1) P.L.R. 326, it was held that for taking benefit of Section 13A of the Act, a person should be landlord or to be more specific specified landlord at the time of his retirement qua premises from which the eviction is sought. In other words, the tenancy must be in existence at the time of petitioner's retirement and if he acquires the character of landlord in respect of premises qua a particular tenant after his retirement, he would not come within the scope of the term "specified landlord" to have recourse to the remedy of Section 13A of the Act. In Dr. D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh, 1987(1) RCR 432 : 1987(1) P.L.R. 521 which was cited at the time of motion hearing before the Hon'ble Judge making the order of reference dated 30.4.1987, it was on the other hand held that an application under Section 13A of the Act by specified landlord for ejectment of tenant is competent even if there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on the date of retirement of specified landlord. The factual position is not disputed between the parties that the premises were let out to the tenant in the year 1980 whereas petitioner-landlord retired from service much before coming into existence of the tenancy in October, 1976. However, after referral, the latter view was upset by the Supreme Court in appeal vide Dr. D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh 1988(1) RCR 176 : 1988(1) Supreme Cases Court 656 as under :

(2.) THE aforesaid Supreme Court decision is on all fours applicable to the facts of this case and in the light thereof as well as the two earlier decisions of this Court referred to above, this revision petition is allowed, order of ejectment of the revision petitioner is set aside and application of the respondent-landlord for ejectment is dismissed. In the facts and circumstance of the case, there well be no order as to costs.