J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated June 15, 1989, whereby permission to contest the said application was disallowed and consequently the eviction order was passed.
(2.) LANDLORD Daulat Ram being a specified landlord filed a petition under section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the ejectment of his tenant Shakil Hussan from the premises in dispute which is house No. 1194, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh. It was stated in the application that the landlord retired from service on November 30, 1988, as Planning officer, Office of Director and Warden of Fishes, Punjab, Chandigarh, after attaining the age of superannuation. He also stated that the premises in dispute was also allotted to him vide letter dated March 10, 1989. During his service he was occupying the government house which was now being got vacated from him after his retirement. According to the landlord, he purchased the premises in dispute with the sole object to settle at Chandigarh and reside in the said house with his family members after the retirement. He also stated that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Union Territory Chandigarh. On receipt of the notice of this petition the tenant filed the application for leave to defend inter alia, on the ground that petitioner as framed is not maintainable in law as the same is not accompanied by a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement; that the house in question was exempted from the operation of the Act; and lastly the petition has been filed with mala fide motives to increase the rent from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 2000/-. Reply to the said affidavit was filed on behalf of the landlord denying all the allegations made by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that the certificate placed on the record indicating the date of his retirement is sufficient to satisfy the mind of the Court that the landlord has retired from service with effect from November 30, 1988. Moreover, that tenant never contended anywhere that the landlord was not a specified landlord as defined under the act and therefore not entitled to get the benefit of section 13A of the Act. As regards the objection raised by the tenant that it has nowhere been mentioned that the landlord has intention to reside in the local area of Chandigarh after his retirement, the learned Rent Controller found that though in the affidavit of the landlord filed along with the petition under section 13-A of the Act, it has been mentioned that he required the demised premises for his as well as for his family use and occupation, though it has not been mentioned as to where he intended to reside after the retirement. The further objection that the building was exempted from the operation of the Act, was negatived as section 13-A was overriding any notification issued under the Act. Consequently, leave to contest was disallowed and eviction order was passed granting two months' time to the respondent-tenant for vacating the premises in dispute.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the tenant vehemently submitted that the landlord intentionally omitted to mention in the application as well as in the affidavit that he intended to reside in the demised premises after retirement because he has no intention to settle in India as he is already a green card holder in USA. One of his sons is already residing there as its citizen. The second son though in Chandigarh is living separately. Only the third son is living with landlord, who also intends to go to States ultimately. In support of his contention he has referred to certain entries made on the passport of the landlord to this effect. Thus, argued the learned counsel that since the landlord has no intention to reside in the demised premises, he was not entitled to seek eviction under section 13-A of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the landlord visited USA first time on July, 31, 1989 during his service tenure and again visited USA on July 24, 1989 and he ultimately intends to settle there and that is why he purposely did not make any averment either in the ejectment petition or in the affidavit. He also urged that the certificate field alongwith the petition was not in accordance with the provisions of section 13-A of the Act, therefore, the tenant was entitled to leave to contest the ejectment petition.;