Gurdarshan Singh Mann vs Manmohan Singh Kapoor

K.S. Bhalla, J.—This Civil revision has been referred for the decision of a Division Bench to resolve conflict of single bench decisions of this Court with regard to rights of a specified land-lord for summary eviction u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act). In the two earlier decisions reported as Ajmer Singh v. Ranjit Singh 1986(2) PLR 666 and Resaldar Surjit Singh v. T.N. Sood 1987(1) PLR 326, it was held that for taking benefit of Section 13-A of the Act, a person should be landlord or to be more specific specified landlord at the time of his retirement qua premises from which the eviction is sought. In other words, the tenancy must be in existence at the time of Petitioner''s retirement and if he acquires the character of a landlord in respect of premises qua a particular tenant after his retirement, he would not come within the scope of the term ''specified landlord'' to have recourse to the remedy of Section 13-A of the Act. In Dr. D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh 1987(1) PLR 521, which was cited at the time of motion hearing before the Hon''ble Judge making the order of reference dated 30th April, 1987, it was on the other hand held that an application u/s 13-A of the Act by specified landlord for ejectment of tenant is competent even if there existed no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties on the date of retirement of specified landlord. The factual position is not disputed between the parties that the premises were let out to the tenant in the year 1980 whereas Petitioner landlord retired from service much before coming into existence of the tenancy in October, 1976. However, after referral, the latter view was upset by the Supreme Court in appeal,--vide Dr. D. N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh 1988(1) SC Cases 656, as under:

In order to get the benefit of the summary procedure provided in Section 13-A of the said Act, the ex-serviceman must be a specified landlord at the time of his retirement from service of the Union as provided in Section 2(hh) of the said Act. The Respondent-landlord retired from the service of the Union in 1965 and the house in question was let out to the tenant-Appellant in 1968. Thus, the Respondent was not a landlord qua the premises and the tenant on the date of his discharge from service entitling him to avail of the benefit of the provisions of Section 13-A of the East Punjab Act.

In view of the same the conflict stands already resolved. The earlier view of this Court has been upheld.

The above said Supreme Court decision is on all fours applicable to the facts of this case and in the light thereof as well as the two earlier decisions of this Court referred to above, this revision petition is allowed, Order of ejectment of the revision Petitioner is set aside and application of the Respondent landlord for ejectment is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.