R.K. Khanna vs Janak Raj Singh

M.S. Liberhan, J.—This Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Rent Controller on March 16, 1989, for the ejectment of the petitioner.

The landlord sought the ejectment of the petitioner u/s 13-A of the Hast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, inter alia contouring that he being employed as Senior Sericulture Promotion Officer with the Punjab Government, was due to retire on March 31, 1989. He did not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area. The petitioner sought leave to contest the ejectment application in terns of Section 18-A (4) of the said Act, inter alia, contending that since the landlord was not a specified landlord, he was not entitled for the relief of ejectment of the petitioner

Leave to contest the ejectment application was rejected vide order, dated December 22, 1989, inter alia holding that since the tenant himself admitted the respondent as his landlord and rent was being paid to the landlord in his own right, hence landlord is a specified landlord This order was not challenged.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no proper notice was served on the petitioner, as prescribed in Schedule II of the Act Since no such objection was raised before the Rent Controller, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the objection in Revision Petition particularly when the petitioner has not suffered in any manner whatsoever on account of any defect in the notice The petitioner did file an application seeking leave to contest the ejectment application on all possible grounds available to him. The application was decided after hearing the parties o merits, vide order, dated December 22, 1988. The only ground pressed before the Rent Controller for seeking leave to contest the ejectment application, as taken out from the application itself, runs as under :

"That the landlord applicant is not a specified landlord as mentioned in the Amended Act as the property is in the name of Tej Ram".

Though other grounds like non-filing of certificate of a competent authority with respect to retirement as well its an averment that the landlord possessed three rooms adjoining the house in dispute were raised It is not disputed before me that the landlord did retire on March 31, 1989 from the Sericulture Department of the Punjab Government It is not disputed that the house referred to in the application for leave to contest is owned by the father of the landlord. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that the landlord neither owned nor possessed muchless owned and possessed, any other suitable accommodation in the local area.

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord is not a specified landlord is concerned, an attempt has been made to distinguish between the definition of a landlord and a specified landlord, to the effect that ''landlord'' is one who either for himself or on behalf of any other person receives the rent, but ''specified landlord'' is one who receives the rent on his own account. There is no dispute with the proposition pressed into service by the counsel for the petitioner. The tenant has admitted the landlord to be his landlord of the disputed premises. The admission made runs as under :-

"The applicant is admitted to be landlord of the disputed premises."

So far as the denial of the petitioner that the landlord-applicant is not a specified landlord is concerned the same has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment.

By reading the two averments together, it is categorically discernible that the tenant never took the stand that the landlord was not receiving the rent on his own behalf. The property being owned by somebody else, by itself does not lead to an inference that the landlord was not receiving the rent on his own behalf. Admittedly the tenant was inducted as a tenant by the respondent-landlord and he had been receiving the rent Merely that property is shown in Municipal Tax Register, in the Column of ownership in the name of Tej Ram, would be in material. In view of these undisputed facts, it was reasonable for the Rent Controller to come to a conclusion that the landlord was receiving the rent on his own account and was squarely covered within the definition of a specified landlord I also affirm the finding of the Rent Controller that the landlord is a specified landlord.

In view of Section 18(4) of the Act, where leave to contest the ejectment application has been declined, the averment made therein shall be deemed to be admitted The ramification of the above observations is that the landlord is entitled for the eviction of the tenant. There is nothing on the record to show, nor any affidavit has been filed that the landlord owned or possessed any other suitable accommodation in the local area. I find no error of law for setting aside the impugned order Resultantly, the Revision Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to vacate the demised premises. Two months time is granted to the petitioner subject to the condition that he will file an undertaking to the effect that be or anybody in possession of the demised premises shall surrender the possession on or before the expiry of two months, ending February 28, 1991, and shall pay the arrears of rent up-to-date either by depositing before the Rent Controller or by Money Order addressed to the landlord without deduting the Money Order commission, within four weeks.