RAM MURTI Vs. DEVI RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the application to contest the application filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the Act) was rejected.

(2.) THE landlady retired as Headmistress of Government High School, Sabathu, on April 30, 1983, on attaining the age of superannuation. On April 13, 1987 she moved a petition under Section 13-A of the Act on the ground that she is a specified landlord and that she does not own any other suitable accommodation in the urban area of Chandigarh and wants to take up residence in the demised premises in possession of the tenant-petitioner. According to the landlady, the accommodation in the house is not sufficient to meet her requirements. The tenant joined issue with her but the learned Rent Controller found that the plea was not available to the tenant. According to him once it is held that the landlord is a specified landlord and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 13-A of the Act, the question of availability of sufficient accommodation with the landlord cannot be raised by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller is not correct in his observation. The tenant can contest the application on the grounds which if proved will disentitle the specified landlord to claim the eviction of his tenant. She could raise the objection. In the instant case except the paid assertion of the tenant in the written statement, there is no material to vouchsafe the assertion. The tenant has to bring material, if possible, at the stage she has filed affidavit seeking leave to contest the application disentitling the specified landlord to claim the relief. The defence sought to be raised by the tenant does not appear to be genuine. It appears to be camouflage to defeat the claim of the specified landlord. In the evening of her life the landlady is entitled to live comfortably, peacefully, uninterrupted by outsiders in her house.