J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This is tenants' petition against whom eviction order has been passed Under Sec. 13(A) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended by Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985.
(2.) The landlord/Respondent filed petition Under Sec. 13 -A of the Act on 10th January, 1986, for the ejectment of his tenants from the building in dispute alleging that he was the "specified landlord" as defined Under Sec. 2(hh) of the Act which was added by virtue of Punjab Act No. 2 of the 1985, i.e., the Amending Act. It was pleaded that he got constructed the building in dispute when he was an employee in the Pepsu State and has been residing there. After merger of the Pepsu with Punjab, he shifted from Patiala to Chandigarh and has been residing there since then. The premises in dispute were given on rent to the tenant Gian Chand for Rs. 250/ - p. m. The landlord retired from Government service of the Punjab Government in the year 1966. The necessary certificate to this effect issued by his employer stating that he retired from service w.e.f. 28th November, 1966 was duly field. According to the landlord, the premises were let out to Gian Chand (Respondent here) who described himself to be the sole owner of Kissan Commercial Corporation, Patiala, for his residence and office. The landlord previously also filed ejectment application but the same was later on got dismissed in default The landlord also pleaded that he did not possess or own any other residential accommodation within the limits of Patiala Municipal Committee, and he required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation, that after his retirement he had been living with his son at Chandigarh and now he wanted to reside in his own house in dispute, i.e., at Patiala, along with his wife and unmarried daughter. He also stated that he had got no residential house of his own in the country except the house in dispute. Thus, under the provisions of Sec. 13 -A of the Act he sought the eviction of the tenant.
(3.) When served, the tenant filed an application seeking permission to contest the eviction petition, as provided under Sub -section (4) of Sec. 18 -A of the said Act. In the affidavit filed by him, he stated (i) that the aforesaid premises were "non -residential building" and the same had been used as such not only by the tenant -company but earlier to it the same were on rent with Messers Kissan Commercial Corporation for commercial use; (ii) that prior to the present tenants, the said premises were being used for housing the office of the Executive Engineer Tubewell Division No. 2, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, and the same were let out to it for commercial use, and (iii) that the applicant owned another residential house within the limits of Patiala Municipality. On the basis of these averments in the affidavit, the tenant sought leave of the Rent Controller to contest the ejectment application. The learned Rent Controller, after contesting the whole matter, came to the conclusion that there was no need of granting permission to the tenant for contesting the application as no such case had been made out as contemplated by Sub -section (4) of Sec. 18A of the Act Consequently, eviction order was passed on 3rd March, 1986.;