- (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated March 29, 1993 whereby an application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') filed by the landlord, respondent herein has been allowed and an ejectment order passed against the tenant-petitioner to vacate the premises in question within one month from the said date.
(2.) IN order to, facilitate the task of a specified landlord as de fined under Section 2 (hh) of the Act to recover possession of his residential building or a scheduled building for his own occupation. Section 13-A was inserted in the Principal Act whereby a specified landlord, who at any time within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement applies 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, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, has been given a right to recover immediately the possession of his residential building or a scheduled building or any part thereof, For the purpose of this Section, the expression "retirement" means termination of service of a specified landlord otherwise than by resignation. On the strength of the above section, Col. Harminder Singh Gill, respondent herein, claiming himself to be a specified landlord of House No. 224, Section 36-A, Chandigarh, let out to S. K. Sharma, petitioner in the year 1980, filed a petition for the ejectment of the latter from the entire house before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. It was alleged in the petition that the landlord retired from the Army Service after attaining the age of superannuation and has been asked by the Army Authorities to surrender the vacant possession of the official accommodation by April 11, 1993. Along with the petition, the landlord attached a certificate issued in his favour by the competent authority indicating his date of retirement. An affidavit to the effect that the landlord did not possess any other suitable accommodation in the urban area of Chandigarh was also filed along with the petition. It was further alleged that the landlord was occupying only one room above the garage and one bath room in the said house which were insufficient for his use.
(3.) UPON notice of the petition, the tenant-petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller and filed application dated March 10, 1993 seeking leave to contest alleging that the landlord in fact retired on February 28, 1990 and that the letter produced by him did not indicate the date of retirement of the landlord and the said letter was simply regarding his release from the re-employed service with effect from February 10, 1993. The tenant therefore, alleged that the respondent-landlord was not a specified landlord. While filing reply to the application seeking leave to contest by the landlord, it was clarified that though the landlord retired on February 28, 1990 but he was given re-employment after giving the break of one day. It was thus, averred in the reply that he was a specified landlord.;