Gurjeet Singh and Others vs Dr. Harcharan Singh Sidhi and Another

N.K. Sud, J.—Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, Kharar dated 5.11.1992 declining their application for leave to defend u/s 13-A read with Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act'').

Respondent-landlord had filed a petition u/s 18-A of the Act for eviction of the petitioners from different parts of the demised premises. He claimed himself to be a specified landlord for the purpose of filing eviction petition u/s 13-A of the Act. Leave to defend was sought on the ground that the petition u/s 13-A of the Act was maintainable only qua one part of the property and not qua all parts of the property in the occupation of different tenants. This plea was rejected by the Rent Controller.

The present revision petition has been filed on the basis of a judgment of this Court in Smt. Zenobia Bhanot Vs. Surinder Sharma, , wherein it was held that if a building owned by the specified landlord has more than one parts which are let out to different tenants, the landlord can avail the benefit of Section 13-A of the Act only in respect of one part.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly pointed out that the view of this Court has already been upset by the Apex Court in Zenobia Bhanot v. P.K. Vasudeva and another, 1996(1) RLR 7. The Apex Court has held that the specified landlord has an option to get the recovery (immediate possession) of the residential building or any part or parts of said building in a case where the building is let out in parts. Since, the ground on which the petitioner''s application has been rejected by the Rent Controller is in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Zenobia Bhanot''s case (supra), no ground for interference in the same has been made out.

Accordingly, the civil revision is dismissed. No costs.