Dr.D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—The challenge to this revision petition u/s 18-A (c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (for short, ''the Act'') is to the order dated August 6, 1986, of Rent Controller, Kapurthala, allowing application u/s 13-A of the Act, of the Respondent-landlord, ordering the Petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises in dispute within on month from the date of the order and hand over possession thereof to the applicant-landlord.

It has been filed in the following circumstances:-

Kartar Singh, Respondent to the present revision petition, filed an application u/s 13-A of the Act for ejectment of Dr. D.N. Malhotra, the Petitioner in this revision petition, from House No. 694-BA, situated within the manicipal limits of Kapurthala. It was pleaded therein that Dr. Malhotra was a tenant in the demised premises at the rate of Rs. 85/- per mensem and he was in arrears of rent since 22.12.1984. It was averred that the applicant had retired from the service of Government of India, Ministry of Defence, on May 20. 1949 and his services were transfrred to the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India. He was discharged therefrom on November 30, 1965. He had no house in his possession within the municipal limits of Kapurthala. He wanted to reside in that house mentioned above and prayed that order of ejectment be passed against his tenant in a summary way.

On receipt of notice of this application from the Rent Controller, the present Petitioner filed an application u/s 18-A (4) of the Act seeking leave from the Court to contest the application for ejectment. An affidavit was appended with the application.

The Rent Controller allowed leave to the tenant-Petitioner to contest the ejectment application on the point.-

Whether the Petitioner was a specified landlord as defined-under Section 2 (h) of the Act.

The Petitioner tendered the arrears of rent claimed by the landlord on the first date of hearing and the same was accepted under protest alleging that it was not a valid tender.

The applicant appeard as his own witness in support of his case. He produced on record a certificate issued to him by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, stating that Kartar Singh applicant had been working as Sub Divisional Officer, Evaluation, in the office of Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, from May 25 1949 to November 30, 1965 and he had been discharged with effect from November 30, 1965 on account of winding up of the department. Kartar Singh proved the certificate. He deposed that he had retried from the service of Government of India Ministry of Defence, on May 20, 1949 and his service were transferred to the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India from where he was discharged on November 30, 1965. The order of discharge had been passed by Shri Khushi Ram, Regional Settlement Commissioner. It was signed by him. The witness had been seeing Shri Khushi Ram appending his signatures, during the course of his employment. He identified the signatures of Shri Khushi Ram on the discharge certificate. The Rent Controller exhibited the certificate as A-1 The Petitioner had objected to the exhibiting of this document. Shri D. N. Malhotra, Petitioner, also made a statement as R.W. 1. He stated that he was a tenant in the premises in dispute since 1968. There was another portion of the house which had been sold by Kartar Singh about five years back. Kartar Singh had been residing at Chandigarh for the last 20/25 years. He had never served in the Rehabilitation Department and had never been a Government Employee. He did not require the house for his own use and wanted to sell the house.

The Rent Controller accepted the statement of Kartar Singh. He held that the certificate Exhibit A- 1 stood proved through the statement of Kartar Singh. He also held that it had been established on the record that Kartar Singh had held an appointment in a public service or in connection with the Union of India and was a specified landlord'' as defined in Section 2 (h) of the Act. He repelled the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner that certificate Exhibit A-1 had not been properly proved and Kartar Singh applicant had not retired from service as contemplated u/s 13-A of the Act. He came to the firm conclusion that the certificate had been properly proved and Kartar Singh having been discharged from the service of Government of India, would be deemed to have been retired as envisaged by Section 13-A. Consequently, the Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered ejectement of the Petitioner. Dissatisifid with the impugned order, the Petitioner has come up with the present revision petition.

Shri Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has argued that the law required a specified landlord to produce a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of retirement. Exhibit A-1 produced by Kartar Singh did not fulfil the requirements prescribed by the Act. It is typed on a plain paper. It is not on any official writing pad. It does not bear any despatch number. It is also contended that the certificate of retirement is to be proved by cogent and admissible evidence.

I have carefully perused the certificate Exhibit A-1. It has been signed by Shri Khushi Ram. Kartar Singh has stated on oath that he had been seeing Shri Khushi Ram, who was his superior officer, signing various documents and he was thus familiar with his signatures. He has also identified the signatures on A-1. This statement of Kartar Singh had been accepted by the Rent Controller. The certificate stands proved. Kartar Singh was a competent witness. He has made a state ment on oath and deposed that the certificate was signed by Shri Khushi Ram, the Regional Settlement Commisssoner, who was an authority competent to dismiss him from service. The witness has not been shaken in cross-examination. The certificate thus stands proved. The scope of revision u/s 18-A (8) is very limited. The provision of Section 13-A providing for summary eviction of tenants of specified landlords, have been introduced by Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985 with a view to mitigate the hard-ships of the Defence Personnel and other Central and State Government employes. For this reason, it has been provided that no appeal or second appeal would lie against the orders of ejectment. A very limited power of revision has been conferred on the High Court to satisfy itself as to whether the order passed by the Rent Controller was according to law. The appreciation of evidence shall be beyond the pale of these proceedings.

The mere fact that the certificate Exhibit A-1 is not typed on a letter-head pad or it does not bear the despatch number, will not detract from its genuineness. As noticed earlier, it has been properly proved. There is no material on the file which may cast any doubt on the authenticity of the certificate.

It was contended by Shri Ashok Bhan that Kartar Singh claims to have retired from service in 1965. The premises were let out by him to the present Petitioner in 1968. At the time of his retirement in 1965, Dr. Malhotra, the Petitioner, was not a tenant under Kartar Singh. The latter was not a landlord of the Petitioner. The provisions of Section 13-A are applicable to those tenancies which were in existence at the time when the specified landlord retired from service. In other words, in order to succeed in an application u/s 13-A, the specified landlord is to establish that he owned the premises in dispute at the time he retired from service ; the premises were in occupation of the tenant at that time and the tenancy subsisted upto the time the application for ejectment was made. Since in the case in hand, the premises had been let out to the revision-petition in 1968, i.e. three years after the retirement from service of Kartar Singh, the provisions of Section 13-A were not attracted and the ejectment application was incompetent and the impugned order passed on that application is clearly without jurisdiction. In support of this contention, Shri Ashok Bhan has, appart from referring to the provisions of Sections 2(hh), 13-A and 18-A, brought to my notice decisions in Bhanu Athihayya v. Comdr, Kanshal 1979 (sic) R. C. J. 338, and Sohan Singh v. Dhan Raj Sharma 1983 (2) Rent L. R. 465. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned Counsel, it will be apposite to read the statutory provisions referred to by him

2(hh). specified landlord'' means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.

13-A. Where a specified landlord at any time, within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, whichever is later, applies to the Controller along with a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside to recover possession of his residential building or scheduled building as the case may be, for his own occupation, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, not withstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether expressed or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately the possession of such residential building or schedule building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts. ...

18-A(I). "Every application u/s 13-A shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section.

(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any residential building or scheduled building made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section:

Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.

It is manifest from the definition of specified landlord incorporated under Clause (hh) of Section 2 that any person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, is entitled to take benefit of the provisions of Punjab Act, No. 2 of 1985. He can seek summary ejectment of his tenant. u/s 13-A a landlord who is in service, can within one year prior to the date of his retirement, or within one year after the date of his retirement, apply to the Controller for ejectment of his tenant. Similarly, a specified landlord can apply for ejectment of his tenant within one year of the date of commencement of the Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985, which was published in the Punjab Government Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 16th November, 1985 The present application has been filed by Kartar Singh on 12-12-1985. It was filed within the prescribed period. This application clearly falls within the four corners of Section 13-A of the Act.

Deriving inspiration from the ratio in Bhanu Aththayya''s case (supra), it is sought to be contended that in order to fall within the definition of specified landlord, a person who seeks ejectment of his tenant must be a landlord of the premises sought to be vacated and the Respondent in the petition must be a tenant therein at the time when the applicant retired from service. Indeed the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 13-A(1) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1957, have taken the view that a landlord who was a member of the armed forces and has duly retired, shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if there existed a relationship of the landlord and tenant between him and the person sought to be ejected at the time of his retirement. A member of the armed forces who had retired from service and thereafter purchased the premises in dispute and then sought ejectment of his tenant u/s 13-A(1) (a) (supra) was non-suited on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, when the land-lord retired. This construction was put on the peculiar language of the statute in the Bombay Act. The language of Section 13-A of the Act is vitally and materially different from the one in Section 13-A(1) of the Bombay Act which is reproduced at page 340 of the Report. Therein, there was no provision for a specified landlord to mate an application for ejectment of his tenant within one year after the commencement of the Amendment Act as occurs in our statute In view of the difference of language, the ratio in Bhanu Aththayya''s case cannot prevail.

The ratio of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sohan Singh v. Dhanraj Sharma is also of no help to the Petitioner. In this case also their Lordships considered the provisions of Sub-Section 3A of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The material part thereof, reads as under:-

(3A) In the case of a none-residential building, a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the armed forces of the Union of India or who was a minor son at the time of death of the deceased landlord, and requires it for his personal use, may within a period of three years from the date of retirement or discharge or attaining the age of 18 years, as the case may be, apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession:

Provided that where the landlord has obtained possession of a non-residential building under this Sub-section, he shall not be entitled to apply again for the possession of any other non-residential building of the same class ;

Herein again the language is quite dis-similar to the one employed in S. 13A of the Act. Herein too the landlord has not been given the choice to file the application for ejectment after the enforcement of Clause (3-A) through Haryana Act No. 16 of 1978. Only a landlord who stands retired or discharged from armed forces of Union of India has been authorised to apply within a period of three years from the date of retirement to file an application for the ejectment of his tenant. It was in the context of this provision that the Division Bench observed that an ex-serviceman cannot derive any benefit under the provisions of Section 13(A) in relation to the premises he purchased after his retirement from the Defence Services. As noticed earlier, in the Bombay Act and the Haryana Act, there is no provision enabling a retired officer to move an ejectment application within one year of the commencement of the Act. Since in the Punjab Act a right has been given to a specified landlord to seek ejectment by filing an application within one year of the enforcement of the Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985, the circumstances that were germane to the interpretation of the somewhat analogous provisions of the Bombay and Haryana Acts cannot have a bearing on construing the language of Section 13A of the Act. An application u/s 13A of the Act by a specified landlord seeking ejectment of a tenant is competent within one year of the commencement of the Amended Act, even if there existed no relation of landlord or tenant on the date of retirement of the specified landlord.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same but with no order as to costs. The Petitioner is granted one months time to vacate the premises.