DEV RAJ MITTAL Vs. VIDYA SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDYA Sagar, respondent-tenant filed an application seeking leave to contest the ejestment application, filed by the petitioner-landlord Under Section 13-A of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') within the statutory period having retired on July 31, 1991. The tenant sought leave on the grounds that the petitioner was not the owner landlord of the premises in question and that he never retired as a government employee of the Haryana State, he having retired from Nangal Workshop. The petilioner did not require the premises for his personal bona fide use and occupation and he has got sufficient property in the Urban Estate of Ambala City. Further stand of the tenant was that the petitioner look a sum of Rs. 30,000/from him for the marriage of his two sons but he failed to repay the said amount and consequently agreed not to get the premises vacated from him. The petitioner-landlord further agreed to sell the demised premises to the tenant alone and further allow the tenant to adjust the aforesaid amount along with interest against the arrears of rent. The petitioner-landlord filed reply to the allegations levelled by the tenant in the application seeking leave to contest the application for ejectment wherein it was staled that he retired as a Haryana Government employee w. e. f. July 31, 1991 and was getting pension from the Haryana Government. It was asserted that he was the owner and landlord of the premises in question and the tenant was estopped from denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. The further case of the petitioner is that he requires the premises for his own residence, he having decided to settle at Ambala City after retirement. Taking of loan of Rs. 30,000/- from the respondent-tenant or adjustment thereof against the rent was denied.

(2.) LEARNED Rent Controller while disposing of the said application observed that the main point to be looked into was whether the landlord required the premises in question for his personal bona fide use and occupation or he had other residential property at Karnal or Ambala as alleged by him. The Rent Controller after considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, granted permission to the respondent-tenant to contest the ejectment petition. It is how the present revision came to be filed by the petitioner-landlord.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed. Counsel for the respondents was at pains to take me through the application seeking leave to contest to show that the landlord owned other properties within the urban estate concerned. The counsel was unable to refer to any part of the application which could show that the landlord was the owner or in possession of a residential premises. Reference in the application seeking leave to contest is that the landlord owns and possess another property in the urban area. Owning other properties in the urban area concerned is not a bar to seek ejectment from residential premises Under Section 13-A of the Act. Even of this being specifically pointed out, learned counsel for the respondent was unable to show that the landlord owned any other residential accommodation in Ambala City which may be in his actual physical possession. Faced with this situation, counsel for the respondent submitted that though reference in the agreement not to eject the tenant has not been referred to in the application yet the broad details have been given therein. In my view, this again does not support the case of the respondent for a giant of leave to contest. If the respondent has given a loan to the landlord, he is entitled to recover the same according to law along with interest agreed thereon. Even otherwise, according to the respondent, the interest thereon was to be adjusted against the rent due upto March 31, 1994 which period is expiring during the next three weeks. This apart, there is no estoppel against the statute. Under Section 13-A of the Act, a specified landlord is entitled to seek ejectment from residential accommodation on his retirement from government service. This is what the petitioner is seeking. As regards the fact, whether the petitioner is a specified landlord or not, suffice it to say that he retired from Nangal Workshop and is drawing his pension from the Haryana Government. He is thus, taken to be an employee of the Haryana Government and thus, a specified landlord. The whole approach of the learned Rent Controller is erroneous. There is no question of sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation as the petitioner was neither alleged nor shown to be in possession of any part of the premises in question. He was even now not shown to be in possession of any other residential accommodation in the urban area concerned.