Mohinder Singh vs Gurnam Singh and Another

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against the order of Rent Controller dated 29th November, 1988 whereby the permission sought to contest the petition u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), was declined.

Briefly stated the respondent filed an ejectment application u/s 13-A of the Act on the ground that he is a specified landlord who since has retired from the Railway service on 3rd November, 1987. The accommodation with the respondent was stated to be most insufficient and the premises in dispute was required for his own use and occupation. Landlord further averred that he has five sons and three daughters besides his wife. Out of them, three sons and two daughters are married who visit the petitioner occasionally and so the accommodation in his possession is insufficient.

The petitioner put in appearance and filed an application u/s 13-A (4) of the Act for permission to contest the ejectment application on the ground that (i) petitioner is not a specified landlord; (ii) that the petition has not been filed in accordance with law; (iii) it is denied that the petitioner requires the property for personal use and occupation and thus, sought permission to contest the ejectment application. The Rent Controller found no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner and so declined the prayer seeking permission to contest the present petition. Resultantly, petition u/s 13-A of the Act was allowed and the tenant was directed to deliver back the possession within 3 months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Rent Controller on the ground that the Rent Controller overlooked the factual aspect of the case which has consequently resulted in failure of justice. According to the petitioner, the landlord is in possession of four rooms and a kitchen whereas the petitioner is in possession of only one room and a small kitchen. Not only this, three sons and two daughters of the landlord are married and admittedly residing at different places outside Jalandhar, This way the total members of the landlord family are five. The counsel further submitted that the present case is of additional accommodation and for this, it was the bounden duty of the Rent Controller to examine as to whether the existing accommodation with the land-owner is sufficient or not. The counsel in support of his contention cites Ravinder Nath Khanna v. T.R. Lakhanpal and Anr. 1990 (2) R.C.R. 73 and K. G. P. Pillai v. Subhash Chander Pathania 1990 (2) R.C.R. 386. I find sufficient force in this submission of the learned counsel. The Rent Controller has not applied his mind on the facts of the present case and has chosen to dispose of the same in mechanical manner. I accordingly set aside the order of Rent Controller, and remand the case for fresh adjudication. The Rent Controller will afford due opportunities to the parties to adduce an evidence in support of their respective contentions and would try to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months. The parties to appear before the Rent Controller on 10th September, 1992. No costs.