JOGINDER PAUL Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision No. 2146 of 1987 as the question involved is common in both the cases.

(2.) THE landlord Gurdial Singh filed two separate applications under Section 13 -A of the East Punjab Uaban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') against his two tenants -Joginder Pal and Vijay Kumar for their ejectment. According to the landlord he is the owner of House No. B -XVIII 3659. Out of that house he rented out a room shown red in the plan to Joginder Pal whereas the other room was rented out to other tenant Vijay Kumar on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/ - According to the landlord, he was a specified landlord as he retired from the Army as Subedar. Since the premises in question formed part of the residential Zone, the premises in dispute could not be converted into a non residential use or purpose under the Act. Though the same were let out as shops but since they formed part of residential building; the landlord is entitled to seek their ejectment Both the applications for ejectment were filed on 18th August, 1986. Necessary summons were issued to the tenants for appearing within 15 days of the service thereof and to obtain leave of the Controller to contest the application for eviction under Section 13 -A of the said Act. Services were effected on the tenants on September 2, 1986 They have filed the application for leave to contest on October 8, 1986. However, on the corner of the summons date was given "Peshi 6th October, 196(sic)" The application filed by the tenants for leave to contest was opposed by the landlord primarily on the ground being barred by time as it was not filed within 15 days of service of the notice. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant has failed to give any plausible explanation for the delay and, therefore, the same could not be condoned Consequently, he passed the eviction order against the tenant.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I am of the considered view that in the absence of any evidence on record that the premises in dispute was a residential building, no eviction order could be passed under Section 13 -A of the Act. Surprisingly enough, there was no evidence on the record to this effect Even the landlord did not appear in the witness -box to state that the premises in dispute are residential building. In the copy of the notice filed by the tenant before the Rent Controller, it was clearly stated that it was rented out as a shop. Even in this Court the Petitioner moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to place, on record certain photographs to show that the the premises in dispute are regular, shops, having shutters and were rented out as such and that being so, no eviction order could be passed under Section 13 -A in respect of the premises in dispute.