SHORI LAL Vs. LT. SURINDER KUMAR MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act), against the order of the Court of Shri Pritam Singh Pattar District Judge, Amritsar (who is the appellate authority under the Act), dated March 21, 1969, upholding the decision of the Court of Shri R.S. Gupta, Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated August 17, 1967, directing the ejectment of the Petitioner from the' residential premises belonging to the Respondent under Section 13(3)(a)(i -a) of the Act.

(2.) THE Petitioner executed a rent note, dated January 6, 1953, in respect of the premises in dispute in favour of one Gaud Shankar who owned these premises at that time. By registered sale -deed, dated November 3, 1966, the property of which the premises in dispute form part, was purchased by Smt. Raj Karni. The Petitioner became her tenant at Rs. 25 per mensem. Raj Karni's application Exhibit R. 2, dated March 31, 1965, for ejectment on various grounds including that of bona fide personal requirement, was withdrawn by her on May 30, 1966. During the course of the trial of that application, Raj Karni had made statement Exhibit R. 1, before the Rent Controller, Amritsar, on March 17, 1966. After the withdrawal of her application for ejectment Raj Karni gifted away the property in question by registered gift deed Exhibit A. 1, dated June 8, 1966, in favour of her son Lieutenant Surinder Kumar Mehra, who is the Respondent before me. Written notice of the gift was given to the Petitioner on June 22, 1966. Thereafter the present petition was filed by the Respondent on July 8, 1966, for eviction on the following ground contained in Section 13(3)(a)(i -a) of the Act:

(3.) THE question of law which Mr. Awasthi has pressed before me relates to the interpretation of the first explanation to Section 13(3)(a)(i -a). He says that he does not question that the certificate Exhibit A. 2 has been issued by the prescribed authority. Counsel submits that he also does not question that the Respondent is a member of the armed forces. What he wants to submit is that despite the certificate Exhibit A. 2 stating that the Respondent is serving under special conditions, I should hold that the certificate is incapable of being correct in that respect. The argument is that "Special conditions" as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act were not in existence at the time the petition for eviction was filed. Section 3 of the above named 1925 Act says that an Indian soldier shall be deemed to be serving under special conditions when he is or has been serving : (a) under war conditions, or (b) overseas, or (c) at any place beyond India. Serving under war conditions has been explained in Section 3(b) to imply serving of an Indian soldier when he is or has been at any time during the continuance of any hostilities declared by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette to constitute a state of war for the purposes of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, or at any time during a period of six months thereafter. Mr. Awasthi's argument is that in so far as the Central Government had not declared India to be at war with any country at the time the petition for eviction was filed, I should hold that the certificate Exhibit A. 2 does not fulfill the objective conditions and the requirements of the Respondent serving under war conditions. I regret I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel on the short ground that the Legislature has barred any inquiry into a matter of this type by enacting the explanation referred to above. Certificate A. 2 is in the following terms: