PARKASH Vs. BIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is owner of house No. 2331, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. He let out the barsati Portion of the said house to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 600.00 in the year 1991. He was working as a Personal Assistant in the Union Territory Secretariat, Chandigarh, and was to retire on January 31, 1996. He filed a petition Under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (As applicable to Union Territory Chandigarh) (in short the Act) for ejecting the respondent from the premises in question. It may be observed here that the ground floor portion of the house in question was in occupation of the younger son of the petitioner while the first floor of the house in question was in occupation of the eldest son where they were staying with their families. The petitioner was in occupation of a Government accommodation. He alleged that after retirement he is to stay with his sons and would require the demised premises for his own use and occupation. It was further stated in the petition that he was not having any sufficient accommodation in the local area of U. T. Chandigarh.

(2.) THE respondent-tenant contested the application and filed an application for leave to contest the petition Under Section 18-A which was allowed by the Rent Controller on March 16, 1996. A revision petition (civil revision No. 1447 of 1996), filed by the landlord against that order was dismissed by this Court on February 6, 1997.

(3.) THE only ground for non-suiting the petitioner is that in his petition he did not state that he did not own or possess any suitable accommodation but he had only stated that he had no sufficient accommodation in the local area. The fact that the petitioner had retired from Government service on January 31, 1996 and that he was in occupation of Government accommodation was not disputed.