Ravinder Kumar vs Mohinder Pal and Another

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is tenant''s civil revision directed against order dated 29.7.1997 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur whereby application of the tenants praying that they may be permitted to defend proceedings u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the respondent, has been dismissed.

Mohinder Pal, landlord (respondent herein) filed application u/s 13-A of the Act as amended up to date for the ejectment of the tenants from the premises consisting of one room and kitchen on the first floor of the house situated in Mohalla Arya Nagar, Hoshiarpur. Landlord contended that he retired as Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts), office of Chief Accounts Officer, Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, District Gurdaspur on 30.9.1995. He averred that he required the premises for his own use and occupation as he intends to reside therein. He further contended that presently he is residing in Mohalla Kamalpur and has got two rooms in his possession. He further averred that a married son of the applicant is also residing with him but relationship between his wife and the wife of the son are not cordial and as such to have peaceful life, he wanted to shift to the demised premises. He contended that the premises where he is presently living is not suitable for the reasons given in the ejectment application.

Notice of the petition was served on the tenants on 29.9.1996. Neither they put in appearance nor filed an application seeking leave to defend on that date. They put in appearance on 8.11.1996 and filed affidavit seeking leave to defend stating that the landlord is in possession of two-storeyed house consisting of two rooms, one store, laterine, bath room and a kitchen on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor. They further averred that the ground floor of the building of which the demised premises is a part is also in occupation of tenants and no ejectment petition has been filed against them.

Learned Rent Controller declined to grant leave to defend the petition on two counts; firstly that the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation; and secondly, application for leave to contest was not filed within the time prescribed for the same. The Rent Controller thus directed the tenants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord within 45 days. Hence this civil revision.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants has contended that the landlord is already in possession of suitable accommodation and that his requirement for getting the tenants evicted is not bona fide. In support of this submission, it is contended that the landlord has neither disclosed number of rooms in his possession nor full accommodation available in the house in which he is presently residing. Learned Counsel further contended that the application for leave to defend was not filed within time prescribed as the tenants were under the impression that application is required to be filed only on the date fixed in the case. Counsel contended that the date fixed in the case was 8.11.1996 and application for leave to defend along with affidavit was filed on the said date. It is contended that the learned Rent Controller should have condoned the delay unless he thought that delay on the part of the tenants was mala fide. In this context, learned Counsel has cited V.N. Sood v. Dr. Gurbachan Singh 1981 (2) R.L.R. 795 and Roop Kishore Sharma v. Smt. Bachni Devi (1998)118 P.L.R. 263.

Against this, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the landlord that on service of the summons, it was obligatory on the part of the tenants to put in appearance within 15 days and file application for leave to defend. It is contended that because of failure on the part of the tenants to do so, the Rent Controller has rightly declined to extend the period of limitation as stipulated under the Act for seeking leave to defend the application.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on perusing the record carefully, I am of the view that there is no merit in this revision petition.

Section 13-A of the Act provides as to how and when a specified landlord can seek eviction of his tenant from the building. It lays down that a specified landlord can seek eviction of his tenant either one year prior to his retirement or within one year after his retirement. One of the essentials of Section 13-A of the Act is that the landlord must not be owning and possessing any other suitable accommodation in that area where the tenanted premises are situated. In this case, the landlord in his application which is supported by affidavit, has stated that he at present has got two rooms in his possession. A married son is also living with him but the relationship of the wife of the landlord and the wife of his son, is not cordial and to have peaceful life, landlord wants to shift to the demised premises. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel conceded that the house presently in occupation of the landlord is built on an area measuring 62 Sq. Yds. whereas the tenant is in occupation of a room and a kitchen on the first floor of house which is built on an area of 100 sq. yds. Considering that the married son along with his wife is also living with the landlord, it can safely be held that the accommodation with the landlord is not sufficient and suitable at all. Consequently, no interference in this regard is called for.

As regards the contention that the Rent Controller should not have dismissed the application for leave to defend on the ground that the same was not filed within the period prescribed under the Act, it is only to be stated that the two judgments cited by the learned Counsel in this regard do not apply to the facts of the present case and are clearly distinguishable.

In V.N. Sood''s case (supra), delay in filing application for leave to defend was condoned on finding that the tenant was ignorant of the special procedure provided under the Act and he took the date mentioned in the summons for appearance as well as for leave to defend the case. Explanation given by the tenant was found to be bona fide.

In Roop Kishore Sharma''s case (supra); application for leave to defend filed after 15 days was entertained because it was found that the tenant was collecting some particulars for filing application for leave to defend. It was in this context that it was held that a liberal approach should be given to condone the delay unless the Rent Controller thinks that delay on the part of the tenant was a mala fide affair.

In the present case, this is however not so. In the summons sent and served upon the tenants, it was clearly stated that "you are hereby summoned to appear before the Rent. Controller within 15 days of the service thereof and to obtain leave of the Controller to contest the application for eviction u/s 13-A of the said Act, in default whereof the applicant will be entitled at any time after the expiry of the said period of 15 days for your eviction from the said residential building." In view of the clear statement, it cannot be successfully contended that the tenants mistook the date mentioned in the summons for appearance as well as for leave to defend the case. Moreover, in the affidavit filed by the tenants seeking leave to defend the application u/s 13-A of the Act, no explanation regarding delay was given. Explanation now put forth is clearly an after thought and deserves to be rejected. Consequently, no interference in this regard is also called for.

For the reasons recorded above, this civil revision is dismissed. However, at the request of learned Counsel made on behalf of the tenants, three months time is allowed to them to vacate the premises provided an undertaking is filed by the tenants within one month from today that on the expiry of period of three months, they would hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord.

No costs.