J.S.NARANG, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed a petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (amended upto date), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises. The case of the petitioner is that the House No. 475, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh, was owned by his father late Sardar Chandan Singh Kang. That, during his life time, he had inducted the respondent as tenant on the ground floor at a monthly tenancy of Rs. 180/-, payable in advance. Sardar Chandan Singh Kang died on September 3, 1986 leaving behind a Will, on the basis of which, the house devolved upon his widow Smt. Gurdev Kaur and his four sons namely Gurbhajan Singh Kang, Harjit Singh Kang (petitioner), Gursharan Singh Kang and Jasbir Singh Kang. The house in question was duly mutated in favour of the aforesaid persons in the records of the Estate Office, Union Territory, Chandigarh. It is averred that a family settlement was arrived at on December 25, 1994 by the successors. It is alleged that the tenanted premises were defined to have fallen to the exclusive lot and ownership of Smt. Gurdev Kaur and sons. Since the property had been inherited by all as aforesaid, the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent came into existence between them.
(2.) THE petitioner was serving as a Commodore in Indian Navy and he retired on June 7, 1995. The petition for eviction has been filed in the capacity of a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2(HH) of the Act. It is admitted fact that appointment of Commodore in Indian Navy is a public service in connection with the affairs of Union of India. It is averred that the petitioner does not own and possess any other accommodation in the urban area of Chandigarh and that he intends to reside in the demised premises on the ground floor. Additionally, it has been mentioned that the respondent (tenant) owns an eight marla double storey, house bearing No. 2390, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh. The said premises have been let out by the tenant at a monthly tenancy of approximately Rs. 5000/-. The respondent-tenant was required to vacate the premises but he refused to do so, which led to the filing of the petition. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. The respondent filed an application for seeking leave to defend which had been granted and that by way of filing written statement, certain objections have been taken :- (i) There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent, as such, the petitioner does not have the locus-standi to maintain such petition; (ii) the petitioner is not a specified landlord and that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted qua Smt. Gurdev Kaur, one of the successors of late Sardar Chandan Singh Kang; (iii) the petitioner is in use and occupation of Ist and IInd floor of the house in question, as such, there is no bonafide requirement of the landlord for seeking vacation of the premises. The petitioner is residing at Bombay with his family members and never resides at Chandigarh nor he has any intentions to shift to Chandigarh alongwith members of his family; (iv) the alleged family settlement dated December 26, 1995 is not a legal and valid settlement and that has been created to enable the petitioner to institute the petition as a specified landlord. Since partition of the property is not permissible in Chandigarh, such partition is hit by the provisions of The Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the rules framed thereunder. Thus, no right accrued to the petitioner for the demised premises, as such, the petition is not sustainable and the same deserves to be demised; (v) the alleged Will stated to have been executed by late Sardar Chandan Kang was never acted upon after the death of the testator and does not confer any right on the petitioner and that the property in question has not been mutated accordingly in the record of the Estate Office, Chandigarh; (vi) the certificate of retirement has not been issued by competent authority and that the petition is not accompanied by duly sworn affidavit. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation bonafidely ? OPP 3. Whether the certificate of retirement has been issued by competent authority ? OPP 4. Relief.
(3.) THE learned Rent Controller decided Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. However, issue No. 3 has been decided in favour of the petitioner. In view of findings on issues No. 1 and 2, the petition has been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated November 7, 1998.;