SHAKIL HUSSAN Vs. DAULAT RAM SUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated June 15, 1989, whereby permission to contest the said application was disallowed and consequently the eviction order was passed.

(2.) LANDLORD Daulat Ram being a specified landlord filed a petition under section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the ejectment of his tenant Shakil Hussan from the premises in dispute which is house No. 1194, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh. It was stated in the application that the landlord retired from service on November 30, 1988, as Planning officer, Office of Director and Warden of Fishes, Punjab, Chandigarh, after attaining the age of superannuation. He also stated that the premises in dispute was also allotted to him vide letter dated March 10, 1989. During his service he was occupying the government house which was now being got vacated from him after his retirement. According to the landlord, he purchased the premises in dispute with the sole object to settle at Chandigarh and reside in the said house with his family members after the retirement. He also stated that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Union Territory Chandigarh.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the tenant vehemently submitted that the landlord intentionally omitted to mention in the application as well as in the affidavit that he intended to reside in the demised premises after retirement because he has no intention to settle in India as he is already a green card holder in USA. One of his sons is already residing there as its citizen. The second son though in Chandigarh is living separately. Only the third son is living with landlord, who also intends to go to States ultimately. In support of his contention he has referred to certain entries made on the passport of the landlord to this effect. Thus, argued the learned counsel that since the landlord has no intention to reside in the demised premises, he was not entitled to seek eviction under section 13-A of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the landlord visited USA first time on July, 31, 1989 during his service tenure and again visited USA on July 24, 1989 and he ultimately intends to settle there and that is why he purposely did not make any averment either in the ejectment petition or in the affidavit. He also urged that the certificate field alongwith the petition was not in accordance with the provisions of section 13-A of the Act, therefore, the tenant was entitled to leave to contest the ejectment petition.