Kulwant Singh Bedi vs Sukhdev Singh Sandhu

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s revision petition whose application u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act has been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated April 30, 1986.

The landlord filed the ejectment application on February 13, 1986, on the allegations that he had retired from the service of the Central Government as Sub-Postmaster, Chandigarh, on May 31, 1982, and as such he was specified landlord as defined under Clause (hh) of Section 2 of the Act as introduced by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985. He was filing the eviction application within one year of the commencement of the said ammendment Act. It was also averred that the landlord did not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Ludhiana except the accommodation included in the plan and as such he had got a right to recover immediate possession of the demised portion for his personal necessity. He was in occupation of two bed-rooms drawing-cum-dining, two kitchen two bath room and two stores on the ground floor and two bed-rooms on the first floor whereas the tenant was in occupation of two bed-rooms and store in the building Unit No. B-X1X-343/1. According to his the premises were required for his own occupation as well as for the occupation of his married son who had two children. The other sons and daughters who too are married also visit him of and on. The application was contested on the ground that the accommodation with the landlord was suitable for his needs and that he only wanted to dispose of the property after getting the same vacated. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord did fall within the definition of a specified landlord. However, according to him, the accommodation with him was suitable for him and, therefore, he was not entitled to eject the tenant. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. Since no apeal is provided against an order passed on an application u/s 13-A, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court. Along with the revision petition, the landlord also moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2464-CII of 1986 in order to place on the record two documents, Anne-xures PP1 and PP2. Annexures PP1 is the plan of the house, in dispute, whereas Annexure PP2, is the copy of the allotment letter dated May 8, 1985, by virtue of which a flat has been allotted to the tenant at a price of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Out of the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has already been realised and the remaining amount will be recovered in 120 monthly instalments with interest. The tenant was further required to execute the agreement for sale, of the said flat before the possession could be handed over to him. In the reply filed to the said miscellaneous application the tenant admitted that he had received the allotment letter, but further pleaded that he had not got the possession of the said flat so far and that there was no liklihood of the same in the near future because many formalities were still to be completed before taking possession.

The learned Counsel for the landlord-Petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the learned Rent Controller was wrong, illegal and improper. According to the learned Counsel, it has been wrongly held that the accommodation with the landlord was sufficient to meet his requirements. The two bed-rooms which are said to be in occupation of the landlord are virtually cattle sheds and the height of their roofs is 7 feet only ; it does render the same unfit for habitation. The learned Counsel further contended that now, by virtue of the provisions of Sub-section (2-A), which has been added to Section 19 of the Act by the said amendment Act, if the landlord did not occupy the premises for a continuous period of three months, after the eviction of the tenant therefrom u/s 13-A, he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or with both. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenant-Respondent submitted that on the appreciation of entire evidence it has been found that the present accommodation available with the landlord was suitable for him and, therefore, no inter ference was called for with the finding of the Rent Controller in revision .

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find that the whole approach of the Rent Controller was illegal, misconceived and improper.

The landlord required the demised promises for his own use and occupation as well as for the use and occupation of his married son who had two children. Under the circumstances, it could not be held on the basis of the evidence that the accommodation with the landlord was sufficient suitable to meet his requirements. He could not be compelled to occupy the rooms which are meant for cattle sheds, for his residence. Moreover, he has constructed the house according to his requirements and the tenant there being in a portion only, it could not be held that the landlord possessed suitable accommodation in the local area concerned. Apart from the above, admittedly, now the tenant has been-allotted a flat in the local area concerned by the Improvement Trust, which he can easily occupy.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Eviction order is passed against the tenant who is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises ; provided he files an undertaking, in writing, within one month, that after the expiry of the said period he shall vacate the demised premises and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the landlord, and in future, the rent will be paid by the 10th of every month in advance.