J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed u/s. 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended by the Rent Controller vide order dated 1st September, 1988.
(2.) THE landlord-respondent sought the ejectment of his tenant from the demised premises being two rooms on the ground floor of the house having three storeys jointly owned by three brothers, including respondent Yoginderpal. According to the landlord-respondent, the premises were let out to the tenant vide lease deed dated 9.1.1978 by their father, Ram Dass, who died in the year 1982. The landlord Yoginderpal retired from the Industries Department of the Punjab State with effect from 30th September, 1986 whereas the ejectment application was filed by him on 18th September, 1987, i.e. within one year of his retirement. According to the landlord, the tenant, Kamlesh Kumar, subsequent to the date of the tenancy vacated one room which was later occupied by Deviderpal, respondent, brother of Yoginderpal; that at present the tenant is in occupation of two rooms for a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-; that the landlord has a family of four members; that he was in possession of only one room and a kitchen on the first floor of the house that he has no accommodation on the ground floor and that the remaining portion of the entire house shown in blue is in possession of his other two brothers (respondent Nos.2 and 3). In these circumstances, the landlord stated that he had no other suitable accommodation for his comfortable living after his retirement. After the service of the notice, the tenant sought permission to contest the application, inter alia, on the ground that the landlord has already sufficient accommodation in his occupation; that during his service he was posted at Hoshiarpur, where the premises are situated, from 1st June, 1980 to 30th September, 1986, when he retired; that if he could live in a portion of the building for such a long time there was no occasion to claim more accommodation by filing the present application u/s 13(A) of the Act. It was also pleaded that part of the premises in occupation of the landlord at present are sufficient to meet his requirement, and therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also contended that the family settlement between the brothers had taken place during the ejectment proceedings on 16th January, 1988, and therefore, the same could not be taken into consideration by the Rent Controller, and that in any case, the tenant should have been allowed to contest the ejectment application to prove the falsehood of the said partition, if any.;