V.K Jhanji, J.:— K.K Khurana is a landlord of House No. 1283, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, which is occupied by Dharampal Kakkar on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- per month.
2. Petitioner K.K Khurana, was in the service of Labour Department, Government of Haryana. On his retirement from service, he presented a petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applicable to U.T Chandigarh, before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, supported by an affidavit for eviction of respondent-tenant by contending that after his retirement from service of Government of Haryana, he bona-fide requires the premises for his residential purposes as he wanted to live in the said house permanently along with his other family members. He averred that he has no other suitable accommodation anywhere in the Union Territory of Chandigarh where he could reside with his family members. Petitioner placed on record a certificate of discharge from service issued by the Competent Authority.
3. After the afore-mentioned petition was presented by the petitioner, the tenant appeared in response to the summons and made an application under Section 18-A(4) of the 1949 Act supported by an affidavit praying for grant of leave to contest the petition presented by the landlord. In the said application seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, the tenant stated that petitioner is not a specified landlord inasmuch as he is not the owner of the house in dispute since his mother is the owner and so, petition filed by him is not maintainable. Notice of the application was given to the petitioner and he filed reply by way of an affidavit. He stated in the said affidavit that he had let out the premises to the respondent in March, 1985. He has been receiving rent as a specified landlord and not as an attorney of the owner. He also stated that respondent had admitted him to be the landlord in rent application No. 11 dated 6.2.1989 pending in the court of Rent Controller which he had filed for his eviction before his retirement. He also stated that his mother, Smt. Naraini Devi, is more than 82 years of age and is living with him as a member of the family.
4. Rent Controller granted leave to the respondent to defend the petition solely on the ground that petitioner has not specifically stated that he is ‘owner’ of the premises in dispute. The order of the Rent Controller is being challenged in this revision petition.
5. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the view that revision petition deserves to succeed. It is not the case of the respondent that the landlord was not receiving the rent. It is also not denied by the respondent that he was inducted as a tenant by the landlord and the petitioner had been receiving rent from him since then. Respondent has admitted this fact in rent application No. 11 dated 6.2.1989 In rent application dated 6.2.1989 the petitioner specifically averred that the respondent was inducted as a tenant by him during the month of March, 1985 in the ground floor. Rent was fixed at Rs. 600/- per month payable in advance on each first date of the month. In reply to this application, respondent admitted that the petitioner is a landlord of House No. 1283, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. He also admitted that he was inducted as tenant during the month of March, 1985 on a rent of Rs. 600/- per month. Section 13-A of the Act confers a right on the specified landlord to recover immediate possession for his own occupation of residential or scheduled building within one year prior to or within one year after one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement by applying to the Controller along with a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside. ‘Specified landlord’ has been defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act which means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. From the combined reading of Section 13-A and the definition of landlord, it is clear that a person claiming to be a specified landlord may or may not be the legal owner of the property. The only requirement is that he must be receiving rent in respect of a building on his own account. In the present case, as already seen, petitioner had let out the premises to the respondent in March, 1985 and since then he had been receiving rent on his own account. Consequently, the contention of the respondent-tenant that the petitioner being not the owner of the premises is not a specified landlord is not sustainable in law. In this view of the matter, the order of the Rent Controller is to be set aside. This being so, no case for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition is made out in favour of the respondent and accordingly, his application for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition shall stand rejected. Further, as in the ejectment petition the landlord had set out the essential requirements of Section 13-A of the Act and he being a Specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the Act and the petition for eviction having been filed within the period mentioned in Section 13-A besides placing on record of original certificate of discharge from service, the petitioner is entitled to an order of ejectment under Section 13-A of the Act.
6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, order of the Rent Controller is set aside and as a consequence, eviction petition filed by the petitioner for directing the respondent to hand over immediate possession of the premises is allowed. The Rent Controller is directed to issue warrant of possession for ejecting the respondent from the premises in dispute forthwith.
R.M.S
Petition allowed.
Comments