J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller whereby the eviction order has been passed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) against the tenant.
(2.) THE landlord Lt. Col. S.S. Gill filed the ejectment application under Section 13-A of the Act, for the eviction of his tenant from the demised premises consisting of two bed rooms having a common attached toilet, two dressing rooms connected with the said bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining, kitchen, front verandah, toilet, passage in between and bed rooms and the drawing-cum-dining and shared rear verandah situated on the ground floor on the right side of house No. 144, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh. The tenant was inducted in the demised premises on June 13, 1979, and the rent note was duly executed between the parties regarding the tenancy of the entire ground floor of the said house. Subsequently, the tenant surrendered the vacant possession of one of the two bed rooms, toilet, store and the garage whereas the rear verandah and the courtyard were to be used commonly by the landlord and the tenant. The rate of rent was Rs. 600/- per month excluding water and electricity charges payable by the tenant. The landlord claimed himself to be a 'specified landlord' as he was serving as a Lt.Col. in the Army and was going to retire from service on March 31, 1989. The ejectment application was filed on July 29, 1988. It was submitted that the landlord did not possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Chandigarh except the house, in question. It was also submitted that on his retirement, the landlord and his family members consisting of his wife, a college going daughter and a boy, are to reside and to settle at Chandigarh in the said house. Necessary affidavit was filed in support of the said allegations. On service of the notice, the tenant sought permission to contest the said application. According to the tenant, the petition was not maintainable because it was not supported by a certificate of competent authority. It was also maintained that the landlord was in possession of sufficient accommodation in the said house and therefore, the tenant was not liable to ejectment under section 13-A of the Act. The allegations made in the said application were denied by the landlord. The learned Rent Controller found that from the original certificate filed by the landlord, it was evident that he was retiring on March 31, 1989, on attaining the age of 52 years. According to the Rent Controller, the said certificate bore the seal of the Western Command and it had been stated therein that the Brigadier was competent to remove the officer. It was further found that the tenant had failed to disclose any fact as to disentitle the landlord from obtaining the order of possession of the demised premises. Consequently, the application for leave to contest was declined and the eviction order was passed separately. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the application for the production of additional evidence filed in this Court, it is evident from the documents produced therewith that though the landlord will retire at the age of 52 years, but the orders will be cancelled on the grant of retention in service beyond 52 years of age. Thus, argued the learned counsel, it was not certain that the landlord will retire on attaining the age of 52 years. He further pointed out that from the two site plans attached to the said application, it is quite evident that the accommodation in occupation of the landlord was more than sufficient for the landlord and his family members. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the view taken by the Rent Controller was wrong and illegal and the leave to contest the ejectment application has been declined arbitrarily. At that stage, only the plausibility of the objection was to be seen. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Dharam Pal v. Malkiat Singh Gill, 1987 Haryana Rent Reporter 684.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that in an application under section 13-A of the Act, sufficiency or insufficiency of the accommodation could not be gone into. The only requirement is the suitability of the accommodation which is for the landlord to see in view of his status. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the Rent Controller was perfectly valid and did not require any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon. Dr. Dina Nath v. Smt. Santokh Kaur, 1987-1 Punjab Law Reporter 171 : 1987 HRR 73. It was also pointed out that in the certificate itself issued by the Western Command, it has been stated that the Brigadier was the authority competent to remove the officer.;