SURINDER SHARMA Vs. ZENOBIA BHANOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two civil revision petitions filed by two tenants against the eviction orders dated June 13, 1997, passed by Rent Controller, Chandigarh. Since the controversies in both these petitions are similar, these are being decided by this common order.

(2.) TWO petitions, one against Surinder Sharma and the other against P.K. Vasudeva, were filed on December 16, 1987 by Smt. Zenobia Bhanot, respondent- landlady, under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) seeking eviction of the tenants from their respective tenanted portions of House No. 2, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh. The case put forwarded by the respondent-landlady was that both the tenants were inducted in the house by her husband, late S.N. Bhanot, who was the owner of house. She stated in her petitions that her husband was a member of the Indian Administrative Service and was posted in the rank of a Commissioner in the State Government of Haryana. He retired from service on August 31, 1975 and thereafter expired on January 5, 1985. The Act was amended in the year 1985 by Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985, whereby a new Section 13-A was inserted entitling a specified landlord to seek eviction of his tenant on the ground of his retirement from service. A 'specified landlord' was defined in the newly inserted clause (hh) in Section 2 of the Act. A person, who was entitled to receive rent for a building and who was holding an appointment in a public service or post in the Central Government or the State Government was treated to be a specified landlord. Such a landlord was made entitled to file an application before Rent Controller within one year before or after the date of his retirement or within one year of the date of commencement of the Amending Act of 1985. He had to show through a certificate issued by a competent authority the date of his retirement. He was also required to show in his affidavit that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside.

(3.) EACH of the tenants filed applications seeking leave to defend the eviction petition. The applications were supported by affidavits. Relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by Surinder Sharma. He further stated that Studio Kaushal Arts was the tenant under S.N. Bhanot and after his death, Pardeep Bhanot, the son of S.N. Bhanot, collected rent from Studio Kaushal Arts. A plea was raised by the tenant that Smt. Zenobia Bhanot had filed the petition without permission from her son, Pardeep Bhanot, who was a co- landlord. It was further pleaded that the building was not a residential building as it was being used for commercial purposes. Rent was initially Rs. 280/- p.m., but it was increased in the years 1978, 1982 and 1985. The tenant further raised a plea that S.N. Bhanot did not feel any necessity to evict the tenant for personal user and occupation. He was to retire on August 31, 1975, but he opted to let out the premises in November, 1974. It simply showed that he did not need the house for his use and occupation.