J G KOHLI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the requirement of a landlord for the occupation of his residential building must be immediate and existing on the very date when he moves the application under Section 13 (3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, is the primary question that falls for determination in this case.

(2.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen in the wake of the recent enactment of the statute above-mentioned. There under the powers of the Rent Controller under Section 2 (b) of the Act within the State of Haryana have now been conferred on the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, and under section 15, the appellate and the revisional powers have been conferred on the respective Deputy Commissioners and the Financial Commissioner.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 Hari Mohan Gauri at the material time was posted as the Deputy Director Administration, Central Hindi Directorate, Ministry of Education, New Delhi. In anticipation of his retirement (which took place with effect from the 13th of October, 1973) he moved an application on the 10th of January, 1972, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the writ petitioner from house No. 119-A, New Colony, Gurgaon, The application was resisted on behalf of the writ petitioner on various pleas-It appears that during the course of the proceedings the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act came into force on the 27th of April, 1973, and by virtue of Section 20-A thereof the pending proceedings were transferred to the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, who exercised the powers of the Rent Controller. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed only two issues, the first being whether the answering respondent bona fide required the building in dispute for his own occupation and the second one being whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. No other issue was claimed during the course of the trial and no grouse about the framing of the issues was ever raised either before the appellate or the revisional authority.