J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated September 28, 1989, whereby the leave to contest the ejectment petition under Section 13-A of the Act was declined.
(2.) THE landlord Mohinder Sain Chopra filed the ejectment petition on July 18, 1989, under Section 13-A of the Act was declined. The landlord Mohinder Sain Chopra filed the ejectment petition on July 18, 1989, under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended, (for short the 'Act') alleging that he retired on July 1, 1989 as Deputy Superintendent, Central jail, Ferozepore. Along with the petition, he also filed the certificate dated July 11, 1989, issued by the Financial Commissioner, Home and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice Chandigarh, to this effect that he has been retired from serviced w.e.f. July 1, 1989. In the application filed by the tenant under Section 18-A of the Act for grant of permission to contest, it was pleaded that there was no proper certificate filed by the landlord as contemplated under Section 13-A of the Act. According to the tenant the competent authority to remove the landlord was the Governor of Punjab and no certificate has been placed on record from the Governor. The second plea taken was that no proper notice under Section 18-A as such was issued as contemplated and therefore, there was non-compliance of the statutory provisions and on that ground also the tenant was entitled leave to contest the ejectment petition. It was also contended that though no objection as such was taken in the affidavit that the demised premises was non-residential building but since it was let out to the City Club, Pathankot, the premises could not be held to be residential building as such. In support of his contentions he has referred to Messrs Delhi Cloth Mills and others v. Lachhman Dass, 1989(1) RLR 396.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The ejectment application was filed under Section 13-A of the Act and was registered as such as is evidenced from the order of the Rent Controller dated July 1989. In any case, if the summonses were not issued as prescribed under the schedule, the tenant could not be make any grouse as he has not been denied the permission for leave to contest the ejectment application on that ground. The leave has been denied because he has failed to disclose such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession. As observed earlier, this plea was never taken by the tenant in the affidavit that the demised premises was a non-residential building. As regards the certificate of retirement, it was admitted by the tenant himself in his affidavit that the landlord has retired as alleged by him. Once it is so admitted by the tenant himself that the landlord has retired as alleged then the question or proper certificate as such loses its significance. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with costs.;