S C LEEKHA Vs. MOHINDERJIT SINGH AIR COMMANDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed by the tenant is directed against the order dated 12. 1. 1998 passed by the Rent Controller whereby the application filed by the former seeking leave to defend the eviction proceedings has been dismissed.

(2.) AIR Commondore (Retd.) Mohinderjit Singh son of Col. Kehar Singh respondent (for short the landlord) filed a petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) seeking ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the (landlord) was a specified landlord who retired from service on 31. 3. 1997 and he did not own and possess any other suitable accommodation at Jalandhar where he intends to reside and that the demised premises were repaired for his own use and occupation.

(3.) THE application seeking leave to defend was contested by the landlord and it was pleaded that the demised premises were the joint property of the landlord and other co-owners and that on a family partition the same fell to the share of the landlord who thereby became the landlord of the tenant and was, therefore, entitled to seek ejectment of the petitioner. It was also pleaded that the tenant had no right to challenge the family settlement between the co-owners. On a consideration of the averments made in the affidavits filed by both the parties, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there was a family partition between the landlord and other co-owners and that the property in dispute fell to the share of the landlord and that the tenant had no right to question the ownership of the property. It was held that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the landlord was entitled to file the ejectment petition. The Rent Controller also found that the landlord retired from Air Force on 31. 3. 1997 and was, therefore, a specified landlord within the meaning of the Act. As regards the plea that the landlord had filed similar application against another tenant and, therefore, the petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner was not maintainable, the Rent Controller found that no such petition had been filed and that a petition for the ejectment of another tenant under Section 13 had been filed which did not debar the filing of the petition under Section 13-A of the Act. The Rent Controller also found that the landlord did not have any other suitable accommodation at Jalandhar Cantt. as alleged by the tenant. In view of the aforesaid findings the Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner-tenant was not entitled to defend the ejectment petition and consequently dismissed the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend.