G.R.MAJITHIA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby he refused permission to the tenant to contest the application and passed order of eviction against him.
(2.) THE respondent-landlord moved a petition under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (for short the 'Act') as applicable to Chandigarh, against the petitioner-tenant. He purchased the house in dispute vide sale deed dated June 10, 1987. The competent authority issued a certificate to the effect that the landlord is going to retire on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from July 31, 1988. Pursuant to this application, a notice in the prescribed form was issued to the tenant. He sought permission to contest the application on the ground that he was in possession of only one room on the first floor in the premises in dispute. The remaining eight rooms were in possession of Shri Vinod Bansal, son of the landlord, the accommodation with the landlord is sufficient to meet his requirements. The learned Rent Controller did not find that sufficient ground has been made out for grant of permission to the tenant to contest the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following objections, namely : (i) the landlord purchased the property in dispute on June 10, 1987 and is not entitled to the benefit of Section 13-A of the Act, since he is not a specified landlord; (ii) he had sufficient accommodation in his possession and this itself disentitles him to evict the tenant; and (iii) the purchase by the landlord is not bonafide.
(3.) SPECIFIED landlord is defined in section 2 (hh) of the Act, which reads as under :- "Specified landlord" means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or a State." The landlord admittedly is the owner of the property having purchased it vide sale deed dated June 10, 1987. The petitioner will be deemed to be a tenant under him since he is entitled to recover rent in respect of the disputed premises on his own right. Admittedly the landlord was in the service of the State and held a civil post and a certificate has been issued by the competent authority that he will be retiring on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from July 31, 1988. The authenticity of the certificate has not been assailed and in fact could not be assailed. The landlord is a specified landlord within the meaning of the definition in the Act and is entitled to maintain the application. ;