SHAKTI HUSSAN Vs. SH 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. 11 v4, 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 Fishries, 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 20, 1969. 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 Cnandigarh.

(3.) ON receipt of the notice of this petition the tenant filed the application for leave to defend inter alia, on the grounds that the petition as framed is not maintainable in law as the same is not accompanied by a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement; that the house in question was exempted from the operation of the Act; and lastly the petition has been filed with mala fide motives to increase the rent from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 2000/ -. Reply to the said affidavit was filed on behalf of the landlord denying all the allegations made by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that the certificate placed on the record indicating the date of his retirement is sufficient to satisfy the mind of the Court that the landlord has retired from service with effect from November 30, 1988. Moreover, the tenant never contended anywhere that the landlord was not a specified landlord as defined under the Act and therefore not entitled to get the benefit of Section 13-A of the Act. As regards the objection raised by the tenant that it has nowhere been mentioned that the landlord has intention to reside in the local area of Chandigarh after his retirement, the learned Rent Controller found that though in the affidavit of the landlord filed along with ths petition under Section 13-A of the Act, it has been mentioned that he required the demised premises for his as well as for his family use and occupation, though it has not been mentioned as to where he intended to reside after the retirement. The further objection that the building was exempted from the operation of the Act, was negatived as Section 13-A was overriding any notification issued under the Act. Consequently, leave to contest was disallowed and eviction order was passed granting two months' time to the respondent-tenant for vacating the premises in dispute.