- (1.) Havildar Devi Dayal, present respondent, had filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for the ejectment of Prem Nath tenant-petitioner from his house No. 3531, Timber Market, Ambala Cantt., after obtaining a certificate from his officer-Commanding, that he was serving in special conditions in the Army unit and required the house for his own use and for the use of his family. The petitioner-respondent, in his petition, alleged that he was a member of the Armed Forces. The respondent in reply to that para stated that the petitioner-respondent was not in active service but is only Havildar and posted at Ambala Cantt. He also denied that he was serving under special conditions. The Rent Controller ordered the eviction of Prem Nath tenant and allowed him 15 days time to arrange for alternate accommodation. The appeal filed by Prem Nath before the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, failed. He field revision against the order of the Deputy Commissioner in the court of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, exercising the powers under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973. Notice was issued to the respondent and he has been appearing in the Court of the learned Financial Commissioner. Consequently, with the amendment of the aforesaid Act, the revision petition was transferred to the High Court.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Havildar Devi Dayal in fact did not require the house in dispute for his own use, that he has not proved the required ingerdients of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that certificate Exhibit P.W. 1/2 alleged to have been given by the Commanding Officer is not a valid certificate.
(3.) In view of the admission of the respondent-petitioner in the written statement that Devi Dayal is a Havildar, this case will fall under Section 13(3)(a)(v) of the Act which reads as under : "In the case of a residential building, if :- he is a member of the armed forces of the union of India and requires it for the occupation of his family and produces a certificate, from the prescribed authority referred to in Section 7 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 that he is serving under special conditions within the meaning of Section 3 of that Act. Explanation :- For the purposes of this sub-clause "family" means such relations of the landlord as ordinarily live with him and are dependent upon him." Thus the petitioner-respondent could apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession. In the explanation attached to the above quoted sub-section, the certificates of the prescribed authority shall be conclusive evidence that the landlord is serving under special conditions. The word "family" has also been defined and it means such relations of the landlord as ordinarily live with him and are dependent upon him. In this case Havildar Devi Dayal pleaded that he required the house for his own use and that of his family members including himself, his wife his brother and his three children. He had further pleaded that he was not occupying the other residential building of the Urban Area of Ambala Cantt. In his own right sufficient to meet his requirements and that of his family members and that he has not vacated any residential building in the Urban Area of Ambala Cantt. After the commencement of the Act. without sufficient cause. Shri Devi Dayal examined Shri Rameshwar. Subedar Head-Clerk No. 408-OFP.A.W.1. who proved certificates Exhibits P.W.1/2 bearing the signatures of Shri V.K.Surpal, and Exhibit P.W.1/4 bearing the signatures of Shri P.-I. Ravinderanath, the Government Accommodation Authority, Devi Dayal, petitioner respondent, made his statement saying that he has been asked to vacate the Government quarter allotted to him, that he had no other accommodation to live in and that he required the disputed accommodation to live in. The evidence produced in rebuttali is that the petitioner-respondent wanted to enhance the rent. The petitioner-respondent has also proved letter Exhibit A. 6 written by the respondent-petitioner, in which the respondent-petitioner had admitted that the petitioner-respondent had requested him (respondent-petitioner) to vacate the premises for petitioner-respondent's own use and occupation and that he (respondent-petitioner) had been promising to vacate the same as soon as he got suitable accommodation. From letter Exhibit A. 6 coupled with the contention made by the petitioner-respondent in the petition for ejectment, it is evident that he needed the house in dispute for his own use and for the use of his family members. Coupled with this Havildar Devi Dayal has also produced certificate Exhibit P.W.1/4 showing that he is at present serving on active service with the unit. Havildar Devi Dayal also stated that he owns no other house. In view of all these facts, the order of ejectment of the respondent-petitioner Prem Nath, passed by the Courts below is perfectly correct and needs no interference. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the required ingredients have not been proved is not sustainable because Devi Dayal being an Army Officer has only to prove that he required the house for his occupation and occupation of his family and the requirement needed under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act is not applicable in this case. The result is that this revision petition is dismissed with costs. However, the petitioner is given two months time from today to make arrangement for his alternate accommodation.;