J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated September 26, 1988, whereby the leave to contest has been allowed to the tenant in an application for ejectment filed by landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) THE landlord constructed house No. 1102, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh, in the year 1975. It was let out to the tenant on March, 1983. The petitioner landlord, retired from the Indian Airforce in October, 1985 and, thus, Shifted to Chandigarh in December, 1985. Section 13-A of the Act, was made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh in December, 1986 and consequently, the ejectment application was moved in January, 1987 for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the landlord does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of the Chandigarh and that he intended to reside in the demised premises for which he was seeking the ejectment of the tenant. Application for leave to defend was filed by the tenant on the allegations that the landlord had not disclosed the material facts. The landlord had sought re-employment, after having retired from the Indian Airforce as a Security Officer, in the Zonal Office of the Punjab National Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, for the last one and a half years. The landlord's family consisted of four members, i.e. the landlord himself, his wife and their son and daughter. They are residing in a two kanals house and the said accommodation is more than sufficient for the landlord and his family. He is living therein for the last more than one and a half years and never asked the tenant to vacate the demised premises. According to the tenant, the petition had been filed just to enhance the rent. Even the certificate produced by the landlord with respect to his retirement has not been issued by competent authority. Reply was filed to the said application on behalf of the landlord in which he admitted his re-employment after his retirement from the Indian Airforce. He also admitted that he had been provided with accommodation on the first floor of house No. 156, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh, which is a two kanal house. He denied that he had ever asked the tenant for the increase in the rent. All other allegations were denied. The learned Rent Controller taking into consideration the fact that the landlord was in occupation of another house No. 156, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh, on his being re-employed in the Punjab National Bank as a Security Officer allowed necessary leave to the tenant to contest the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 13-A of the Act, a specified landlord is entitled to eject the tenant if the landlord does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside. Thus argued the learned counsel, it is nowhere the case of the tenant that the landlord owned and possessed any other suitable accommodation in the urban area concerned. That being so, the question of granting any leave as such did not arise. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Dr. Dina Nath v. Smt. Santosh Kaur, 1987(1) RCR 363 (1987-1) Punjab Law Reporter 171; Jagdish Singh v. Capt. Ranbir Singh, 1987 (2) RCR 470 : and Kapil Dev Gupta v. Ram Kishan, 1988(1) RCR 473. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no revision petition as such was competent in view of sub-section (8) of Section 18-A of the Act. Moreover, only the leave to contest has been allowed at this stage and therefore, no interference was called for by this Court. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, since, admittedly the landlord has been re-employed, as to what will be its effect is also to be gone into. Even, proper certificate of retirement has not been filed. The learned counsel also pointed out that the tenant had already filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court which is pending for adjudication in which dispossession of the tenant has been stayed till further orders.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has already stayed the dispossession of the tenant, I do not find any justification for interference at this stage, when only the leave to contest has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller.;