SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) JAWAND Singh Bhatia, (hereinafter referred to as the landlord), has filed the instant revision petition against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, vide which the ejectment application filed by him under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (Amendment), 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1985') for eviction of Narinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) from the premises in question on the ground that he is 'specified landlord' and requires the premises for his own use and occupation, has been dismissed.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , in the present case, the landlord was retired as Tehsildar (Sales) from the services of Haryana Government on 1.5.1974. Much after his retirement, he let out the premises in question for commercial purpose to the tenant @ Rs. 300/- per month vide rent deed dated 3.6.1979. On 6.10.1986, the landlord filed the present petition under Section 13-A of the Act of 1985 for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he is 'specified landlord' and requires the premises for his personal use and occupation as he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the area where the property in question is situated. The tenant contested the aforesaid petition on the ground that the building in question is not a residential building. It was let out to him by the landlord for commercial purpose. Therefore, the landlord cannot seek his ejectment under the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act of 1985. Secondly, he submitted that the landlord retired from the Government service in the year 1974 and much after his retirement, he rented out the premises to him in the year 1979, therefore, he cannot deemed to be a 'specified landlord' and seek his ejectment under the Act of 1985. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the evidence produced by both the parties, dismissed the ejectment application filed by the landlord. It was held that the building in question is not a residential building and the same was let out by the landlord for commercial purposes, therefore, the tenant cannot be ejected therefrom. It was also held that the landlord does not fall within the category of 'specified landlord' as he retired from the Government service in the year 1974 after attaining the age of superannuation and much after his retirement, he leased out the premises in question to the tenant in the year 1979.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case.;