- (1.) THE respondent, Wing Commander Chaman Lal Sharma, filed an application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') seeking to evict the petitioner from H. No. 2065-C, Phase-I, Urban Estate Dugri Road, Ludhiana, on the ground that as he was due to retire on 31st October, 1991, on attaining the age of superannuation, he required the house for his own use and occupation. The petitioner moved an application on 23rd May, 1991, for leave to contest the petition and raised various issues. The Rent Controller held that the respondent was a specified landlord and the ingredients of Section 13-A of the Act having been proved, he was entitled to succeed. Amongst the various issues raised, counsel for the respondent-Landlord had also urged that as the house in question was a part of village Dugri and was outside the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, the Act was not applicable thereto and, as such, the application itself was not maintainable. The petitioner also produced certain documents in support of his case, including a letter purported to have been issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, in connection with some writ petition in the High Court in which it had been mentioned that village Dugri was outside the limits of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. In addition to this letter, the petitioner also produced another letter dated 30th July, 1991 issued by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab, Ludhiana, to the effect that the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act did not apply to the Urban Estate Dugri Road, Ludhiana. The respondent-landlord had, however, relied on a certificate dated 25th April, 1994 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, categorically showing that House No. 2056-C, Moza Dugri, fell within the limits of the Corporation. It is the conceded case that if the area in question is held to be outside the limits of Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana, the application of the respondent-landlord would not be maintainable.
(2.) WHILE granting leave to contest the application under Section 13-A a prima facie case must be disclosed by the tenant bringing forth such facts as would disentitle the specified landlord or the other person entitled to possession from recovering the same. It will be seen from the resume of the facts given above, particularly the two letters produced by the petitioner that a prima facie case had been made out by the petitioner and in that eventuality have to contest the application under Section 13-A of the Act ought to have been given to him.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed; the order of the Rent Controller is set aside and the case remanded for fresh decision after giving the petitioner an opportunity to contest the case. As the matter has been long delayed and the respondent having retired in October, 1991, it is appropriate that the Rent Controller should dispose off the matter, if necessary, by day to day proceedings positively within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that any observations made in this judgment will not effect the decision of the Rent Controller on merits.;