Rajinder Singh vs Kirpal Singh Bedi

S.S. Sodhi, J.—Denial of leave to the tenant to contest the application for ejectment filed against him by the respondent-Kirpal Singh Bedi, claiming to be a specified landlord under Sections 13 and 18 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is what is sought to be challenged in revision here.

Ejectment has been sought from a room 18'' x 9'' which was let out to the tenant-Rajinder Singh as a shop where he has ever since been running a cycle repair shop It was the case of the respondent-Kirpal Singh Bedi that he retired from service on February 28, 1989 on attaining the age of superannuation and thus answered to the description of a specified landlord under the Act It was said that the petitioner-Rajinder Singh had been occupying one room out of the property 33 Ward IV, Krishna Gali, Doraha, as a tenant. This room was part of a residential building in the occupation of the respondent, who required the demised premises for his own occupation.

The petitioner sought leave to contest the application for ejectment filed against him, by filing an affidavit taking the plea therein that the respondent-Kirpal Singh Bedi was net a specified landlord, in that, the owner threrof was in fact his mother-Gurdial Kaur. It was with the mala fide intention of extracting more rest that he got these premises transferred from mother to his own name.

The other plea raised being that the demised premises were commercial and not residential.

The respondent in his reply, sought to controvert both the pleas raised by the tenant in seeking leave to contest.

The law is well-settled that if the grounds on which the tenant seeks leave to contest the application for ejectment filed against him, are found to be plausible, leave must be granted to him. On the face of it, there can be no escape from the conclusion in the present case that the pleas put-forth by the tenant, in his application for leave to contest are indeed worthy of consideration after due contest. This being so, the impugned order of the Rent Controller cannot be sustained and is accordingly hereby set aside. The petitioner is granted leave to contest the respondent''s application as prayed for by him.

Before parting with this matter, it must be observed, however, that in the proceedings now to follow before the Rent Controller, regard must be had to the provisions of Section 18-A (6) of the Act In other words, every effort he made to ensure expeditious disposal of the matter by the Rent Controller.

This revision petition is thus hereby accepted Costs of this petition shall be costs in the proceedings. Counsel fee Rs. 300/-.