B R DULLAR Vs. DR C P SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller whereby the ejectment application filed by the landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended, was dismissed.

(2.) Dr. B.R. Dullar, the landlord retired from the service of Civil Surgeon with effect from 31.10.1984. Section 13-A was introduced by way of Amendment Act, 1985 which came into force with effect from 16.11.1985. The landlord filed the present ejectment application under Section 13-A of the Act on 22.1.1986 alleging that he was a specified landlord and the tenant was occupying the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 425/- payable in advance besides house-tax. He was in arrears of rent with effect from January, 1982. He has got two sons and a wife. One of his sons namely Brij Deepak is married and is living in rented premises due to insufficient accommodation. The other son Rajiv Dullar is of marriageable age. In a family arrangement, it has been mutually decided that the tenant premises would be occupied by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation as he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area nor he has vacated any such building in the urban area. The accommodation where the petitioner landlord and his family members are living would be occupied by both the sons in two separate portions. The tenant moved an application for leave to contest the ejectment application which was allowed, and filed his written statement in which it was pleaded that he was using the upper portion for his residence whereas ground floor was used for running of clinic. According to him, he paid rent regularly in advance till January, 1986. He further pleaded that all the sons of the petitioner reside in the residential building situated at Munshian Street, Nabha, The ejectment application has been filed with mala fide intention and the landlord does not require the same for his personal use and occupation. In the replication, the landlord reiterated the plea taken in the ejectment application and he controverted the plea taken by the tenant. On the pleadings of the parties, seven issues were framed.

(3.) It appears that neither the counsel for the parties nor the learned Rent Controller were aware of the provisions of Section 13-A as such as the same was introduced only two months prior to the filing of the present application. If the same had been kept in view, the question of framing those issues could not arise. According to the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the application was mala fide because the landlord retired on 31.10.1984 whereas the present ejectment application was filed on 22.1.1986. In case he required the demised premises for his use and occupation after his retirement, he should have made the application immediately thereafter. He further found that eviction on the ground of personal necessity would be ordered only if the landlord strictly proved his bona fide of personal necessity and if he is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned. Since the landlord is owning land a residential building which is sufficient for occupation by 2-3 families, the plea of personal necessity could not be held to be bona fide. On this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed.