Anil Kumar vs Lt. Col. Vishal Dev Chand

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller dated 30.1.1995 rejecting his application to leave to contest thereby ordering his eviction from the demised premises within a month from the passing of the order.

Respondent-landlord filed a petition u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act as amended claiming himself to be a specified landlord of the residential house as he was to retire on 31.12.1994 and so sought the assistance of the Court for eviction of the petitioner-the tenant in terms of the provisions of the Act. As per averment made in the petition the property in dispute fell to the share of the landlord as per family settlement dated 28.10.1994. In support of his plea that he is liable to be retired on 31.12.1994, a certificate issued by the competent authority was also annexed with the petition. He further made averment to the effect that after his retirement he along with other family members intend to settle at his native place Ahmedgarh.

Notice of this application was served upon the tenant (now petitioner) on 6.12.1994. Respondent put in appearance in the Court on 13.12.1994 and the case was adjourned on 6.1.1995 for filing of reply. No reply was filed on that date and an adjournment was sought and so the case again was adjourned to 23.1.1995. Since, no reply had been filed by the tenant within 15 days from the date of service effected on 6.12.1994, an application was filed u/s 18-A Sub-clause 4 of the Act that the tenant is liable to be evicted as no defence has been set up. This was resisted by the tenant, who in his reply has stated that landlord is still serving and is presently posted at Sambha. According to the tenant, the landlord was not yet to retire for another two years and that he is presently posted at Sambha in the same regiment to Jammu and Kashmir and application u/s 13-A is not maintainable and so is liable to be dismissed. The Rent Controller after examining the matter cam to the conclusion that leave to contest was not claimed by the tenant within 15 days after his service and so as per mandatory provision of Section 18-A, Sub-clause 4, the application of the landlord for an order of eviction is liable to be granted. Rent Controller found merit in this plea of the landlord and so ordered eviction of the petitioner granting him one month to deliver back the possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord.

At the motion hearing, it was stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent is serving in the army and so does not come under the definition of a specified landlord. Noticing this contention, notice of motion was issued and the eviction of the petitioner was ordered to be stayed. Since, the solitary submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent landlord is still serving in the army, the respondent was directed to file an affidavit admitting or denying the specific assertion made by the petitioner that he is still serving in the army. Respondent placed on record an affidavit dated 9.5.1995. Respondent landlord has admitted that after his retirement on 31.12.1994, he has got re-employment and is presently working at Sambha, District Jammu (J & K). Period of his re-employment does not find mention in the affidavit dated 9.5.1995. Verbally both the counsel are agreed that this period is two years. Taking this to be factually true it can be taken that respondent shall remain in employment upto 31.12.1996. Both the counsel further agree at the impugned order be not given effect till 31.12.19 and during this period the tenant shall go on depositing the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- along with the house tax. Thus keeping the agreed stand of the parties in view, impugned order of the Rent Controller is modified to the extent that the same shall not come into operation till 31.12.1996 and the same shall be given effect to as and when an appropriate certificate is produced before the exercising Court that the respondent-landlord stands retired from the Government service. This dispose of the revision petition.

No order as to costs.