DHARAM SINGH Vs. VEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -landlord-Dharam Singh has preferred this revision against the orders dated 27.1.2003 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide which he dismissed the ejectment application filed by the petitioner under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the accommodation consisting of House No. 3177, Sector-27-D, Chandigarh.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision are that the petitioner filed the above said ejectment application against the respondent averring therein that the respondent is a tenant under him at monthly rental of Rs. 2400/-. He was appointed on the post of Superintendent by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and he retired from that service on 31.5.1999 after attaining the age of superannuation. He is, thus, a specified landlord. He is residing in Government accommodation as a licensee which is liable to be vacated by him. His family consists of himself, his wife, two sons and one daughter-in-law. He requires this house for his own use and occupation. He does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Chandigarh. As the application was filed under Section 13-A of the Act, summons were issued to the respondent in the prescribed proforma. He put in appearance before the learned Rent Controller. He moved an application for leave to contest the ejectment application which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 16.9.2000. Thereafter, the respondent filed written statement wherein he has admitted that he is the tenant in the demised premises. He denied other contentions of the petitioner and pleaded that originally he took two room set on rent at the rate of monthly rental of Rs. 150/- and later on he took on rent the other portion of the ground floor of the house and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 200/- per month. The due rent was tendered by him in the Court. The petitioner might have purchased this house on throw away prices with a motive to get the same vacated on frivolous grounds and to sell the same at a higher premium. The petitioner has already preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Act and, therefore, this application under Section 13-A of the Act is not maintainable. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :-

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file and records of the case.