- (1.)The present revision petition which has been filed by the tenant under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') is directed against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the leave to contest under Section 18-A(4) of the Rent Act was dismissed on 06.06.2011 being time barred and in pursuance of the said order, the ejectment application was allowed on 15.06.2011 and the tenant was directed to hand-over the possession of the premises in question within a period of 2 months from the said date failing which, he was liable to be evicted from the demised premises.
(2.)The respondent-landlord on 03.09.2010, had filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant from House No.3057, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh on the ground that he was the absolute owner and landlord of the house in question and was to retire from the Haryana Government service on 28.02.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation and, therefore, he was a specified landlord. The landlord pleaded that he was working as a Joint Director, Food & Supplies Department, Haryana who was residing in Government accommodation bearing House No.1, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh and was due to retire on 28.02.2011 and was not having any residential accommodation to live after retirement in Chandigarh and was a law graduate and wanted to start practice as an Advocate in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. It was, accordingly, contended that the landlord and his family had made a settlement seeing the circumstances that the respondent was due to retire on 28.02.2011 and wanted to start his practice as an Advocate in Chandigarh and had been given the house in dispute by way of family transfer/settlement so that he can live and start his practice after retirement as he could not retain the Government accommodation after retirement. A photocopy of the gift deed registered with Sub-Registrar, Chandigarh dated 27.04.2010 was relied upon and it was pleaded that the tenant was inducted by late Smt.Sarla in the house at a monthly rent of Rs. 18000/- per month on 15.02.2006 excluding electricity, water charges and property tax which was being paid by the tenant and the tenancy was extended up to 30.11.2007 on the request of the tenant that he was constructing his own house and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per month and the tenancy was further extended for 6 months. The tenant had stopped paying rent from February, 2008 and the landlord, Smt.Sarla, her husband, Surjit and son, Dheeraj had made number of requests for payment of rent but in vain and Smt.Sarla had expired on 22.08.2009 and her husband, Surjit and son, Dheeraj had made number of requests to the tenant for payment of rent but he had not given any reply and had not paid the rent for the premises in question onwards from February, 2008. The house in question was, accordingly, gifted through family settlement to the respondent who was in dire need of accommodation in Chandigarh and the tenant had refused to pay the rent and to vacate the premises on the ground that Smt.Sarla had died and the landlord was nobody to collect the rent and ask him for vacation of the house. Accordingly, the petition was filed on the ground that it is required for the personal use and occupation after the retirement of the landlord as the landlord was not in occupation of any other building nor he had vacated any such building and he was in dire need of the house and after necessary repairs, he was to shift in the house in question as he could not retain the Government accommodation after his retirement to practice as Advocate in the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. It was also pleaded that the rent had not been paid from February, 2008 onwards and the legal representatives of Smt.Sarla had authorised the landlord to recover the rent from February, 2008 till date and that the tenant was having his own house but he was not wanting to vacate the premises. The said petition was supported by an affidavit of the landlord dated 03.09.2010.
(3.)The ejection petition firstly came up for hearing on 04.09.2010 and notice was issued on filing of process fee under registered covers and option of dasti summons was also given by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh for 24.09.2010. The report of refusal was received and the summons were received back on refusal and the counsel for the landlord requested to move an application for substituted service. The application for substituted service was filed on 06.10.2010 and the respondent was summoned by way of publication in the newspaper, 'The Tribune' as well as by affixation for 20.11.2010. On 20.11.2010, court notice issued to the tenant had been received back served and the case was adjourned for 12.03.2011 on filing of copy etc. However, on the same date, file was again taken up as the respondent had appeared later and the case was adjourned to 08.02.2011 for filing written statement. The case was again taken up on the application filed by the landlord on the same date that the case be preponed to an early date in the month of December, 2010 since he was to retire on 28.02.2011 since the case had been fixed for 08.02.2011. The Rent Controller issued notice of the application for 26.11.2010 on filing of copy and on 26.11.2010, summons of the application for preponing the case was received back with the report of refusal and it was noticed that none had appeared on behalf of the tenant and the case was again adjourned for filing application for leave to defend, if any, as well as for consideration on the application for 08.02.2011. The landlord, before 08.02.2011, filed another application dated 05.01.2011 which was ordered to be put up on the date fixed in which it was pleaded that since the tenant had appeared on 20.11.2010 and had failed to file leave to defend application within the statutory period after the receipt of summons, it was mandatory as per provisions of Section 13-A of the Rent Act and therefore, eviction order may be passed. On 08.02.2011, when the case was taken up, none appeared on behalf of the tenant and the Rent Controller, noticed that there was no application for leave to contest and adjourned the case for 11.02.2011 for consideration. On 11.02.2011, counsel for the tenant appeared and filed an application seeking leave to contest by way of affidavit of the tenant and the case was fixed for 16.02.2011. On 16.02.2011, reply to the application for leave to contest under Section 18-A (4) was filed and it was pleaded that the retirement of the landlord was due on 28.02.2011 and the certificate attached was also of the competent authority and the tenant was in huge arrears of rent and having failed to apply for leave to contest within the statutory period of 15 days, was liable to be evicted and the landlord was moving another application on the same ground for passing of ejectment order. On the said date, the landlord filed another application for passing eviction order on the ground that the tenant had refused to accept the summons on 09.09.2010 and he was having the knowledge of the rent petition and he had not filed application for leave to defend within the statutory period. It was pleaded in the said application that the tenant was again served on 16.11.2010 but he did not apply for leave to contest and he put in appearance on 20.11.2010 and had not applied for leave to contest and he did not appear on 08.02.2011 and as per the provisions of Section 18-A read with Schedule II of the Rent Act, application for leave to contest had to be filed within 15 days from the receipt of the summons and the application for leave to contest had been filed after the statutory period and was time barred and in view of the law laid down in Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi, 2010 9 SCC 183 and Suresh Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, 2010 2 RCR(Rent) 82, the tenant was liable to be evicted.