P.S.PATWALIA, J. - (1.) The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 6.9.2002 made by the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur declining leave to the petitioner to defend the ejectment petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Act'). The landlord-respondent who was to retire from the service of the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India at Chandigarh on 31.8.2002 filed a petition for eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the demised shop which formed a part of the residential house where the landlordrespondent wanted to settle after his retirement. It was contended in the petition that he wanted to reconstruct the house for use by him and members of his family after his retirement.
(2.) The tenant-petitioner contested the said petition on the ground that he was in possession of a shop which was being used for commercial purpose as also that the respondent-landlord was not a specified landlord as the certificate filed by him showing his date of retirement was issued by a Deputy Director Subsidiary, Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India who was not the competent authority to remove the respondent-landlord from service and hence the requirements of Section 13-A of the Act were not satisfied by the respondentlandlord. The Rent Controller after considering the facts of the case declined permission to defend the ejectment petition to the tenant-petitioner. Hence, the present revision petition assailing the aforementioned order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner firstly contended that the certificate of retirement was not signed by an officer competent to remove the landlord-respondent from service and hence the requirements of Section 13-A of the Act were not satisfied. It is important to mention that the tenant-petitioner, however, did not dispute the fact that the landlord-respondent did not attain the age of superannuation on 31/8/2002. Still further the landlord-respondent had also filed an affidavit affirming that he was to retire on 31/8/2002 and wanted to settle permanently at Gurdaspur. I am of the opinion that once it is not disputed that the landlord-respondent was in fact retiring on 31/8/2002, the question whether the authority which issued the certificate was competent to remove him from service or not would to a great extent lose its significance. In this view of the matter, I am fortified by the observations made by a Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal v. Uttam Singh, 2004(3) PLR 304 which are to the following effect:- "10. It is further pertinent to mention that certificate Ex.A-1 amply proves the fact that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.1996 and the petition had been filed within one year of his retirement. Once the petitioner stood retired, the enquiry whether the certificate had been issued by an authority competent to remove the landlord-petitioner from service would lose its significance. The judgment of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh (supra) amply support this view. The employees of the Board are the employees holding an appointment in connection with the affairs of the State and would be covered by the expression `specified landlord' as defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act. The aforementioned view also finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Fateh Chand Verma, 1987(1) RCR (Rent) 385 (supra). Therefore, the Rent Controller has committed an error by discarding the certificate Ex.A- 1 as insufficient evidence of the fact that the landlord-petitioner was a retired employee and a specified landlord.";