Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Madan Mohan Seth and Others

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is tenants'' revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller dated 1.10.1994 declining the petitioners application for leave to contest.

Petitioner (landlord) filed an application u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment of the respondent from the premises in dispute on the ground that applicant is a landlord who retired from Punjab Government service on 31.8.1991 as Senior Assistant, office of the Controller of Stores, Punjab, Chandigarh. Certificate issued by the competent authority i.e. Director of Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh has been placed on record. In addition thereto, it has been stated in the petition that petitioner (landlord) does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation within the Municipal Corporation limits at Jalandhar except the house in question. After retirement he intends to settle at Jalandhar and so prayed for eviction of the respondents.

Pursuant to notice issued by the Court and service effected upon them, only respondents 1 and 4 put in appearance and sought permission of the Court to contest the petition in terms of Section 13-A of the Act. Contesting respondents denied the assertion of the landlord that he comes within the ambit of the specific landlord. According to the respondents the property belongs to Smt. Lalita widow of Shri Boota. Other averments with regard to personal requirement of the landlord or his intention of coming and settling at Jalandhar was denied. It was further stated that in fact building is quite old and does not have proper amenities according to the status and standard of the landlord. Reply to application to leave to contest was filed by the landlord (now respondent). The Rent Controller on the basis of material placed before him came to the conclusion that the landlord is a specified landlord.

Landlord was held to be a co-sharer in the property and as such could maintain this application. Other averments with regard to the property being unfit for residence of the landlord to be below to his status was not accepted. Resultantly, the Rent Controller found no substance in any of the pleas raised by the petitioner for permission to contest the application and so passed an order for eviction, granting three month''s time to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord-now respondent.

Notice of motion was issued and dispossession of the petitioner was stayed till further orders vide order dated 20.12.1994.

During the arguments on 2.3.1995 an oral assertion was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that another tenant whose eviction too was sought by the respondent u/s 13-A of the Act has already vacated and delivered back the possession of the premises and so the present petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. Before the matter could be examined any further a direction was issued to the respondent to state on oath denying or accepting the assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Pursuant to the direction of the Court, an affidavit was filed by Madan Mohan Seth on 2.3.1995 which was taken on record. As per para four of the affidavit, it has been stated that no doubt two separate applications were filed for eviction of two separate set of tenants and both these applications have been allowed by the Rent Controller but all the same respondent has not taken the possession of the premises and now wishes to take possession from the petitioners alone. It has been specifically stated that he has not taken possession from the other tenant/tenants. Matter was adjourned for arguments on 14.3.1995. On 14.3.1995 petitioner filed an application to place on record an affidavit of Smt. Sudesh Sharma, wife of Kewal Krishan Sharma to prove that the other tenant has not only vacated the premises in her possession but has also delivered the vacant possession of the premises to Shri Madan Mohan Seth on 31.12.1994. This affidavit of Smt. Sudesh Sharma is dated 20.2.1995 i.e. prior to the affidavit filed by Shri Madan Mohan Sethi on 2.3.1995. So the assertion made by the petitioner on the basis of affidavit filed by Smt. Sudesh Sharma stands already refuted. Another affidavit has also been filed by the respondent dated 14.3.1995 stating therein that he will only take possession of the premises under possession of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has argued that as a matter of fact respondent has already taken possession of the other premises earlier with Shri Kewal Krishan Sharma and so is debarred from evicting the petitioners. This factual assertion has emphatically been denied by the respondent. There is no proof on record that order passed against Kewal Krishan Sharma stands executed by the Court. This being the position, respondent is entitled to recover possession from one of the tenants as per Section 13-A of the Act. Nothing has been urged otherwise with regard to the merit of the order passed by the Rent Controller. Resultantly, finding no merit in this revision petition the same is dismissed. It is made clear that as per Section 13-A of the Act respondent is only entitled to recover possession of one residential or scheduled building inclusive of any other parts thereof and no farther.

Petition is, however, granted two month''s time to handover the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent from today.