Rajinder Singh vs Bhajan Singh

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The matter here concerns the ejectment of the tenant u/s )3-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the specified landlord oh his retirement from service.

The demised premises are owned by the landlord Bhajan Singh, who until his retirement from service, was Zonal Superintendent of Police at Patiala. After attaining the age of superannuation on November . G, 1990, he was given a year''s extension till November 30, 1991, and it was for his residence, after his retirement, that he sought the ejectment of the tenant.

According to the landlord he had no building in his possession except that with the tenant. It has come on record that there was another tenant G K. Batta who was occupying two rooms in this building. In March 1989 the landlord had sought his ejectment u/s 13 of the Act This matter was eventually settled by compromise and an eviction order was passed against the tenant G. R. Batta in March 1991 and the possession of the two rooms was thereafter delivered to the landlord.

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the tenant sought to contest the application of the landlord for ejectment by filing an application u/s 18 (5) of the Act, on the ground that the requisite certificate submitted by the landlord was not by his appointing authority and that he was also in possession of other residential property in Patiala. Both these pleas were negatived by the Rent Controller and hence this Revision Petition.

In revision here, the main stress of the counsel for the petitioner was upon the two rooms in the said building which were now in possession of the landlord, namely, those which he had obtained after ejecting his earlier tenant G. K. Batta. The contention being that with the landlord being in possession of this accommodation, the question of suitability of accommodation available with the landlord could only be gone into after leave to contest had been granted to the tenant and the Rent Controller, therefore, fell in error in declining such prayer. This is, indeed, a contention that cannot stand scrutiny, when on the face of it, the two rooms vacated by G. K. Batta, can by no means be branded as suitable for the landlord. Admittedly, there is no bath room or kitchen with these rooms. The unsuitability of this accommodation for the residence of the landlord is, thus, self evident.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the tenant sought to suggest that the wife of the landlord possessed a residential house of her own at Patiala which was more than sufficient for the residence of the landlord. The requirement of law is not the possession or ownership of residential accommodation by members of the landlord''s family but by the landlord himself. Even if the wife of the landlord possesses residential accommodation in Patiala, it cannot be treated as a matter of any consequence.

No occasion is, thus provided here to interfere, in revision, with the impugned order of the Rent Controller. This revision is, consequently, hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fees Rs. 500/-.

The tenant is, however, given time till on or before August 31, 1993, to vacate the demised premises.