Dr. S.M. Nehra vs Sh. S.D. Malik

G.R. Majithia, J.—The tenant has come up in revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller rejecting the application u/s 18-A(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the Act) for leave to contest the petition u/s 13-A of the Act filed by the respondent/landlord.

The facts:-

The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that he was a specified landlord of House No. 2009, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. .He retired as Executive Engineer (Class I Officer), P. W. D. (B&R1, Provincial Division, Hissar (Haryana) on December 31, 1978 He was in occupation of the ground floor consisting of drawing and dining room, two bed rooms two stores, bath and kitchen. His family consisted of three married daughters and one married son. The married son is serving as Assistant General Manager (Marketing) in Hindustan Machine Tools, Rinjore. The present accommodation is insufficient for the residence. He gave details of the rooms in his possession and how those were used. The tenant was in possession of the first floor of the house and he filed the present petition within one year of the commencement of the Act as amended The tenant in his application under Section; 18-A(5) of the Act sought leave to contest the application on the ground that he was inducted as a tenant in two rooms of first floor of house No. 2009, Sector 15-C in August 1975 on a monthly rent of Rs 250/-. Two more rooms were added to the tenancy in July/August, 1978 and the rent was raised to Rs. 500/- per month. The rent was raised to Rs. 520/- per month in April 1979. The landlord retired from service on December 31, 1978. The increase in rent in April, 1979 amounted to creation of a fresh agreement of tenancy regarding the demised premises. The agreement of tenancy was created after the retirement of the landlord. Thus, he was not entitled to claim the benefit of the amended Act.

The Rent Controller held that increase in rent from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 520/- in April 1979 did not amount to creation of a fresh tenancy in favour of the tenant. It was further held that u/s 13-A of the Act, a specified landlord is entitled to recover possession of the residential premises in possession of a tenant if he intends to reside therein. The only requirement is that the landlord is a specified land-lord and he has the intention to reside in the demised premises of which he is seeking the eviction from the tenant.

The learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the increase in the rent from Rs. 500/- Rs. 520/- in April 1979 amounted to creation of a fresh tenancy. The contention cannot be upheld. Marginal increase in rent will not lead to creation of afresh tenancy. The rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the tenant D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh 1988(1) Rent C. R. 177 and Santosh Kumari Passi v. Smt. Kamla Wati 1987 (1) Rent C. R. 481, have no bearing on the facts of the instant case. The Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord intends to occupy the demised premises'' for his residence.

I am not persuaded to disturb the conclusions arrived at by the Rent Controller to this effect.

The learned counsel for the tenant in the course of his arguments submitted that the landlord has filed an application u/s 13 of the Act after filing of the petition u/s 13-A of the Act and this conduct of his disentitled him of the relief on the petition u/s 13-Aof the Act. 1 sent for the file of the petition u/s 13 of the Act and found that the landlord has specifically safeguarded and protected his rights therein and the application u/s 13 of the Act appears to have been moved for recovery of arrears of rent although it is also mentioned that the demised premises are required by the landlord bona fide for his personal use and occupation. I am not impressed with the argument raised. A special remedy is provided to the landlord u/s 13-A of the Act which he has availed of. The tenant could not justify that he is entitled to contest the application. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed. However, 1 leave the parties to'' bear their own costs. C. M. No. 5843-C1I of 1989 and O.M. No. 5844-CII of 1989 also stand disposed of accordingly. At the oral request of the learned counsel for the tenant, the tenant is allowed three weeks time to vacate the demised premises.