M.S.LIBERHAN,J - (1.) THE edifice of entire controversy in this case is that the landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he having retired from the service of Bhakra Management Board, was a specified landlord. Since he did not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area, i.e. Chandigarh, he sought the recovery of the possession immediately. Necessary affidavit as envisaged by section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (Amendment) Act, was filed.
(2.) THE tenant on receipt of the notice sought leave to contest the application for eviction inter alia on the ground that the respondent was working as Director with Concorde International, New Delhi and residing in Greater Kailash Enclave, New Delhi and did not intend to shift to Chandigarh. The litigation with respect to getting the premises vacated on the ground that the landlord being in possession of insufficient accommodation, need the premises in dispute, in pending. In those proceedings, the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority as also the Revisional Authority found that he needed the premises in dispute. The case is now pending in the Supreme Court. The Rent Controller declined the leave to defend the petition inter alia holding that he cannot go into the question of bonafide need relying on Kapil Dev Gupta v. Ram Kishan, 1988(1) RCR 473 : 1988(1) P.L.R. 606 , wherein it has been observed as under :- ".........Thus, once the petitioner expressed his intention to reside in his native town of Patiala in the residential house owned by him and satisfied the aforesaid condition, he has a right to recover immediately the possession of the demised premises, which is admittedly a residential building. The learned Rent Controller could not go into the question of "bonafide need etc." "......The words "He does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area" and 'intends to reside' in section 13-A of the Act have a different connotation and are not to be equated with the words 'he is not occupying and other residential building in the urban area concerned' and 'he requires it for his own occupation' respectively used in section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The case law having a bearing on the terms used in the latter provision of the Act is of no assistance in understanding the meaning and scope of the former."
(3.) APART from the fact that I respectfully agree with the observations made in Kapil Dev Gupta's case (supra), I am further of the view that the specific language used by the Legislature conferring a right on a specified landlord to get the possession of the residential building, just on his showing that his retirement is within a stipulated period and that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation, makes it obvious that he need and sufficiency of the accommodation cannot be gone into. Suitability of the accommodation is the subjective satisfaction of the landlord. In the absence of peculiar facts of a case, the suitability of accommodation for the landlord is not to be seen from the tenant's point of view. In my considered opinion, the leave to defend has been rightly declined. No substantial error has been pointed out in the procedure adopted by the trial Court while declining the leave to defend the petition.;