LAWS(P&H)-2019-3-265

RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. KAMALJEET SINGH

Decided On March 05, 2019
RAJINDER KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Kamaljeet Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, Khanna, dtd. 1/2/2018, giving permission to the respondent herein to contest the petition filed under Sec. 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), the instant revision has been filed.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the petitioner herein filed a petition under Sec. 13-A of the Act for eviction of the respondent from the shop situated at Mohalla Billan Wali Chhapri, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. In the petition, it was pleaded that the petitioner is a specified landlord and working as Deputy General Manager-Incharge (Admin) in MECON Limited Ranchi, which is a Public Sector Undertaking and his date of superannuation was 31/3/2017. It was stated that the petitioner was due to retire and wants to start his consultancy business of small and medium industry unit in electrical and engineering having necessary experience in this field. It was averred that the petitioner wanted to construct office-cum- administrative complex for the purpose of consultancy service at the shop which is on rent with Rakesh Kumar son of Babu Ram, who has sub let the same to one Rajinder Kumar @ Kala son of Vikram and a separate petition under the relevant provision has also been filed against them.

(3.) The tenant/respondent filed an application seeking leave to contest the petition on the ground that the petitioner was not a specified landlord and there had been concealment of material facts that he has three big shops in his occupation which have been put on sale, while further taking a plea that the petitioner had no intention to settle at Khanna or start any business. In fact, a reply was filed to the said application seeking leave to contest and all the allegations made therein were denied, while specifically denying that adjoining shops have been put on sale, as alleged by the respondent/tenant. In the reply, it is specifically stated that the petitioner had been residing in Ranchi due to his job for the last so many years and wanted to settle in Khanna.