Kewal Krishan vs Smt. Lajwanti

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—Petitioner''s learned counsel contended that the Rent Controller while passing the impugned order has relied on Risaldar Surjit Singh v. T.N. Sood (1987) 91 P.L.R. 326 and Dr. D.M. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh (1988) 93 P.L.R. 394 but has failed to notice the point of distinction that in both these cases after the landlord retired, he inducted the tenant in the demised premises and on that count, it was held that as he is not specified landlord qua the demised premises and the tenant, he cannot claim his ejectment u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Amendment) Act, 1985.

In my considered view, the contention is devoid of any force. In Risaldar Surjit Singh''s case (supra), the landlord retired from government service in 1962 and he purchased the site in 1967/1969 on which premises in dispute were constructed in the year 1971-72 and thereafter, he rented it out to the tenant in the year 1973. No doubt, this fact was there in that case that the premises was rented out to the tenant in 1973, but a single Bench of this Court has held that petitioner-landlord was never a landlord within the meaning of Section 2(c) read with Section 2(bb) of the Act on the date of his retirement. He relied on Ajmer Singh v. Ranjit Singh (1986) 90 P.L.R. 666 wherein Division Bench Judgment of his Court, Sohan Singh Vs. Dhan Raj Sharma, was relied upon. It is clearly held that the sine qua-non for taking benefit of Section 13-A of the Act for those who had retired is that one must be a landlord at the time of his retirement qua the premises from which eviction is being sought. If he is so and had retired before the coming into force of the amendment Act (Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985), he can exercise his right to get the tenant evicted under the summary procedure within one year of the coming into force of the amendment Act and if he is in service when the amendment Act had come into force he can exercise that right within one year prior to his retirement as well as within one year after his retirement.

In D.M. Malhotra''s case (supra), the Apex Court has considered this very provision and has held that the landlord retired in 1963. He let out the premises to the tenant-appellant in 1968. On these facts, it was held that this clearly evidences that the respondent was not a ''specified landlord'' within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the said Act as the appellant was inducted as a tenant after his retirement from service of the Union. This Section 13-A of the Act enjoins that "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 said Act makes an application to recover possession of the building or scheduled building, the controller will direct the tenant to deliver possession of the house to him." Thus, it is apparent that the landlord will have to fulfill the first qualification, i.e. he must be a specified landlord in respect of the house in question on the date of his retirement from government service.

In Mrs Winifred Ross and Another Vs. Mrs Ivy Fonseca and Others, , the landlord retired from the Indian Army in 1967. The property of which suit building forms a part originally belonged to his mother-in-law. She gifted the said property in favour of her daughter, Mrs. Winifred Ross the wife of the landlord, on November 9, 1976. On June 6, 1977, Mrs. Winifred Ross made a gift of the portion occupied by the tenant in favour of the landlord. Landlord filed the petition u/s 13-A1 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which is pari-materia to Section 13-A of the Act. The Apex Court held that the word ''landlord'' used in Section 13-A1- referred to an office of the Union, who was a landlord either before or on the date of his retirement from the defence service of the Union. It was held that the plaintiff could not avail the provisions of Section 13-A1 to recover from the tenant possession of the building which he acquired after his retirement.

In this case also, the Rent Controller has held that the petitioner-landlord retired from service of the Punjab Government on 27.11.1973 and he became landlord of the demised premises on 4.11.1976 after the death of his mother, who died on 4.7.1976. Thus, it is obvious that u/s 2(hh) read with Section 13-A of the said Act on the date of his retirement, i.e., on 27.11.1973, he was not a landlord of the demised premises. He became landlord on 4.11.1976. Thus, the Rent Controller has rightly held that the petitioner-landlord is not a specified landlord u/s 13-A of the Act and therefore, on that ground, his petition filed under this provision is not maintainable. The Rent Controller on the basis of above facts rightly dismissed the petitioner''s petition filed u/s 13-A of the Act.

Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence, there is no merit in this revision, which is dismissed accordingly.