Raghunath Chander Sharma vs Harmesh Kumar

J.V. Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated December 20, 1988, whereby the tenant has been allowed to contest the ejectment application filed by the landlord u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act).

The landlord Raghu Nath Chander Sharma filed the ejectment application as a specified landlord u/s 13-A of the Act from the premises, in dispute, situated at Phillaur, on the ground that he intended to settle therein. In the reply filed on behalf of the tenant it was pleaded inter alia that the landlord was already in possession of a part of the building and the said accommodation was sufficient for his requirement. Moreover, the landlord was residing in a very good colony at Amritsar in a very big building of two kanals and had also tenants and that there was no occasion for him to reside in such a small old house as the demised premises at Phillaur. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord, was a specified landlord, but since his assertions regarding his bona fide requirement had been denied by the tenant at that stage of the case, it was not expedient to disallow the tenant to contest the ejectment application. On that ground alone, the permission to contest was granted.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned Rent Controller has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction in granting the permission to contest the ejectment application. According to the learned Counsel, the question of bona fide need could not be gone into in an ejectment application filed u/s 13A of the Act. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Kapil Dev Gupta v. Ram Kishan (1988-1) P.L.R. 606.

Special procedure for disposal of application u/s 13-A of the Act, is provided u/s 18-A of the Act. Sub-section (5) thereof provides that the Rent Controller may give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the specified landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of the possession of the residential building u/s 13-A of the Act. According to the learned Rent Controller since the landlord already owned two kanals kothi at Amritsar. it was unbelieveable that the landlord would shift to the small old house in a small town at Phillaur as alleged by the tenant, but this ground was not available to the tenant u/s 13-A of the Act which clearly provides that where a specified landlord at any time files an affidavit that he does not own or possess any other accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside to recover possession of his residential building he was entitled to move the application thereunder. That being so, the approach of the learned Rent Controller in this behalf was wholly wrong. Such matter has already been decided by this Court in Kapil Dev Gupta''s case (supra) wherein in paragraph 9 of the judgment it was held that once the Petitioner expressed his intention to reside in his native town of Patiala in the residential house owned by him and satisfied the aforesaid, condition, he had a right to recover immediately the possession of the demised premises, which is admittedly a residential building. The learned Rent Controller could not go into the question of "bona fide need etc." Thus, no case was made out by the tenant as to grant him the permission to contest the petition as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 8A of the Act.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is setaside and the case is sent back to the Rent Controller for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. The parties have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on July 28, 1989.