Joginder Singh vs Nahar Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom eviction order has been passed u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended, by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana.

The landlord Nahar Singh was employed as a Postman and retired on (Sic)0-11-1982 on attaining the age of superannuation. He filed the present ejectment application u/s 13-A on 20-8-1986 within one year of the coming into force of the Amending Act. He sought ejectment of his tenant alleging that at present he was in occupation of yellow portion as shown in the site plan out of the entire property comprising of Unit No. B. XVIII, 3657. He does not own any suitable house and intends to reside in the entire building and requires the same for personal use and occupation. The portion shown in red and Jamni colour was let out by him to different tenants when he was in service. Hence he wants ejectment of the tenant, Joginder Singh. In the reply filed by the tenant it was pleaded that the landlord was not specified landlord and hence petition u/s 13-A was not maintainable He also pleaded that it was barred on the principles of res-judicata as an earlier petition filed by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity u/s 13 of the Act was dismissed on 31-1-1986 vide copy, Exhibit AX. He also denied that the landlord retired on 30-11-1982 as alleged According to the tenant, the landlord has got huge building on the front side constructed several shops. The landlord has sufficient accommodation in his possession and hence the petition was liable to be rejected. The learned Rent Controller, after framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was a specified landlord and he retired from Central Government service as a Postman. It was further found that the Local Commissioner, Dalip Garg, Advocate was appointed in this case, has given a report that Rooms No. 1 and 2 are not fit for human habitation, whereas rooms No. 5 and 7 are fit for human habitation. The landlord admittedly has two sons and one daughter He, therefore, requires at least three living rooms for his sons and daughter. In addition to that he also requires a room for himself and his wife. Consequently, it was held that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his occupation. The plea of res-judicata was rejected on the ground that there are different grounds for filing petition u/s 13 and petition u/s 13-A. Moreover, provisions of Section 11, CPC are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, eviction order was passed on 12-10-1988.

At the time of motion hearing, it was contended that in the earlier application u/s 13, the requirement had not been found to be bonafide and hence was dismissed Therefore, the present application u/s 13-A was barred according to the learned Counsel for the tenant-Petitioner.

During the pendency of this petition, the landlord moved a Civil Miscellaneous application No. 709-CII of 1989 to bring on record the subsequent events. According to the said application and the affidavit filed along with it, the tenant has shifted with bag and baggage from the building in dispute to the house purchased by his unmarried son, Shri Gurmeet Singh in Jagjit Nagar, Ludhiana. it has also been stated in the affidavit that the landlord has filed an appeal against order dated 31.1.1986. copy Exhibit AX dismissing the ejectment application u/s 13 of the Act and is pending for final disposal.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, the present application for ejectment was barred on the principles of res-judicata as in the earlier ejectment application copy Exhibit AX, it has been held that the landlord did not require the demised premises for his bonafide use and occupation According to the learned Counsel, there is no difference between the provisions of Section 13 and Section 13-A as regards the bonafide requirement and therefore, the view taken by the Rent Controller in this behalf was wrong and illegal.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the landlord-Respondent submitted that the requirement u/s 13-A and u/s 13 of the original Act are quite different and distinct. u/s 13-A, the landlord is required to file an affidavit 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 whereas u/s 13, the requirement is that he was not in occupation of any other residential building in the urban area concerned or has not vacated any after enforcement of the Act. In support of this contention, he referred to Dharam Pal v. Malkiat Singh Gill (1987 2) P.L.R. 383 and Kapil Dev Gupta v. Ram Krishan (1988-1) P.L.R. 606. He has also submitted that in case the landlord fails to occupy the demised premises after evicting the tenant, the penal consequence are very stringent. The landlord shall be punishable with imprisonment for a period which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or both. He also pointed out to the affidavit filed in this Court that the tenant has already shifted to his own premises.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the case laws cited at the bar, I do not find any merit in this petition. The principles of res-judicata are not applicable as regards the facts of the present case. The learned Rent Controller appointed a Local Commissioner in this Case who has given his report that rooms No. 1 and 2 are not fit for human habitation whereas rooms No. 5 and 7 are fit for human habitation. The question to be decided u/s 13-A is as to whether the landlord owns and possesses any other suitable accommodation in the local area. Sufficiency or insufficiency is not the criterion which may be relevant for the purpose of provisions of Section 13 of the Act. It was held by this Court in (1988-1) P.L.R 606 (supra) that once the landlord expressed his intention to reside in his native town of Patiala in the residential home owned by him and satisfied the aforesaid condition, he has right to recover immediately the possession of the demised premises, which is admittedly a residential building and the learned Rent Controller could not go into the question of ''bona fide'' need etc. Moreover, by amending Section 19 of the original Act, it has been now provided that in case the landlord fails to occupy the demised premises for a continous period of three months from the date of such eviction or lets out the same or any such part or the building from which the tenant was evicted to any person, he shall be liable for punishment with imprisonment for a term which may exetend to six months or fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or both.

Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Amending Act, the scope for interference by this Court is very limited and I do not find any justification for interference in the impugned order. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

However, the tenant is allowed two months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for two months is deposited with the Rent Controller within fifteen days with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of this period, vacant possession will be handed over to the land-lord.