RAM KUMAR Vs. KAMLESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the eviction order dated 03.02.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar in an eviction petition filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short 'the Act'] by Surinder Kumar [since deceased and represented by his legal heirs, namely, the respondents]. The petitioner- tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the tenanted portion of House No. ND-402, Sharda Nand Street Adda Hoshiarpur, Jalandhar.

(2.) SURINDER Kumar filed an eviction petition under Section 13-A of the Act on 30.07.1996, inter-alia, averring that the residential house bearing ND-402 was originally owned by Sarv Shri Fakir Chand and Mangal Sain - both brothers, who had divided their portions during their lifetime. While the portion marked 'ABCD' fell to the share of Mangal Sain, the portion marked 'CDEF' came to the share of Fakir Chand - father of Surinder Kumar. Fakir Chand died in the year 1966 and the portion CBEF came to be inherited by his three sons, two daughters and his widow. The portion shown in red colour in the Site Plan attached to the eviction petition, finally fell to the share of Surinder Kumar, which was let out by his mother to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. The respondents' mother also passed away in the year 1987 and since then Surinder Kumar [since deceased] had been receiving rent from the petitioner till February, 1995 but thereafter no rent was allegedly paid by the petitioner - tenant.

(3.) SECTION 2[hh] of the Act defines "specified landlord" which means a "person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State". Section 13-A of the Act [invoked by Surinder Kumar] provides that a 'specified landlord' at any time, within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement ... may apply before the Rent Controller along with a certificate from the Competent Authority to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside, to recover possession of his residential building or 'scheduled building', for his own use and occupation". Such an application moved by a 'specified landlord' is required to be decided by the Rent Controller summarily as per the procedure laid down under Section 18-A of the Act, which requires a tenant to apply for 'leave to contest' within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice of the eviction petition. Under sub-Section [5] of Section 18-A, the Rent Controller can grant 'leave to contest' to a tenant only if the tenant files an affidavit disclosing such facts as would "dis-entitle the specified landlord or as the case may be, widow, widower, child, grandchild or widowed daughter-in-law of such 'specified landlord' from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the residential building or scheduled building ....". Even where leave to contest is granted to a tenant, sub-Section [6] thereof contemplates that the eviction petition shall be decided on day-to-day basis.