KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) MRS . Kushal Takhar widow of late Ajaib Singh aggrieved against two orders passed by Rent Controller, Chandigarh on the same date i.e. 19.7.2008 has filed the present revision petition. On 19.7.2008, Rent Controller declined the application filed by the petitioner-respondent under Section 18-A(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Act') seeking leave to defend the eviction petition preferred by the respondent-landlord, Annexure P-1. After the leave to defend was declined, on the same day, eviction petition was allowed and petitioner-tenant was ordered to be evicted from the tenanted premises i.e. entire ground floor of House No. 94, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh. A prayer has been made in the present petition that both orders whereby leave to defend was declined and eviction was ordered, be set aside.
(2.) ALL material pleadings necessary for adjudication have been annexed with this petition as Annexures P-1 to P-5 along with another affidavit filed in pursuance to order of this Court dated 12.11.2008. Facts can be gathered from the annexures and the impugned orders and after hearing the parties, the present revision petition can be disposed off. It emerges from the pleadings that application, Annexure P-1 was filed by Gurinder Singh, aged 59 years stating therein that he is owner and landlord of House No. 94, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh, which was purchased by him on 1.2.2005 for a sale consideration of Rs. 46 lacs and house was two and half storey built up. The first floor consist of three bed rooms and second floor consist of one bed room and at the time of filing petition, they were lying vacant. It was further stated therein that petitioner respondent is a tenant on the entire ground floor of House No. 94, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- excluding water and electricity charges and rent was to be paid on or before 7th of each month. Description of the ground floor was also given in the petition. It was stated that the landlord was serving as Special Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi. In 1972 he joined Indian Police Services and was allotted cadre of Gujarat State. He remained posted at Veraval and Porbander in District Junagadh. He has described his various assignments and stated that he rose in the ladder of the career and at present was working on non uniform security related post dealing with National security holding civilian ranks used by Government of India. It was further stated that he was due for retirement on superannuation on 28.2.2009 on attaining age of 60 years. Therefore, he intend to settle permanently in his own House No. 94, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh and occupy for personal use ground floor which is in possession of the petitioner as a tenant. It was further stated that the entire first floor and second floor are neither sufficient nor suitable for the need of family of the landlord which consist of two sons who are settled abroad and intend to migrate back to India. It was said that marriage of elder son is to be performed in December, 2008. It was further stated that due to his growth in career and his position, he has got vast network of friends, many of them stay with him over extended spells at regular intervals. It was further pleaded that landlord and his wife have spent their youth in Chandigarh. They did their studies in Chandigarh, married at Chandigarh and they have got friends and most of the extended families in Chandigarh. It was further stated that the Government accommodation allotted to the landlord consist of four bed rooms, dinning room, kitchen, three toilets, bathroom and lobbies. It has also a garage, two servant quarters, front and rear laws. The covered area is approximately 1066 square meters.
(3.) TO controvert these facts, application under Section 18-A(5) of the Act was filed, in which it was stated that house was purchased on 1.2.2005 by the landlord knowing fully well that petitioner is tenant on the ground floor, only in order to dispossess her. It was stated that he never remained posted in Chandigarh and he has got sufficient property at Noida and other places which has not been disclosed in the petition. Earlier to purchase of demised premises, landlord bought and sold property in Sector 18, Chandigarh. He has got sufficient accommodation, therefore, leave to contest the petition on merit was sought. Reply to application for leave to defend was filed, in which landlord stated that after selling his ancestral land in village Balongi, District Mohali in March, 2004, he bought House No. 167, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh on 28.3.2004. Lateron it dawned upon the landlord that house is to be demolished and rebuilt because of large scale seepage in the main walls of the house. Therefore, that house was sold on 27.7.2004 and demised house was purchased on 1.2.2005. It was further stated that the accommodation on the first floor and second floor alone is neither suitable nor sufficient. It was further averred therein that the younger son who is a Banker plans to return to India in 2009 to set up his own consultancy in Chandigarh and the elder son who is an Electrical Engineer proposes to return to Chandigarh to set up his own house in next 2 to 3 years. Details of proposed marriage of elder son were also given.;