Roshan Lal vs Santa Singh (D.S.P.) Retired

V.K. Jhanji, J.—Briefly stated the facts of this case are that Banta Singh respondent filed an application u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that he is a specified landlord and requires the premises for his own use and occupation. He has averred in his petition that he retired as D. S. P. on 31.10 1992. Admittedly, an application u/s 13-A of the Act could be filed on or before 16.11.1985 as notification enforcing the said Section was made on 16.11.1985. Since 16.11.1986 happened to be a Sunday, this petition could be filed on 17.11.1986, but was actually filed on 18.11.1986. The tenant made an application on 16.2.1987 seeking leave to defend the petition inter alia on the ground that the landlord is not a specified landlord inasmuch as he could file petition u/s 13-A of the Act only on or before 16.11.1986. The landlord also filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that he could not file. The petition u/s 13-A of the Act as certificate of retirement from the competent authority was not made available to him and the moment the same was made available, the petition was filed. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application for condonation of delay on 12.6.1987 and on that very day also dismissed the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend the petition. Being aggrieved of the order of the learned Rent Controller dismissing his application for seeking leave to defend the petition, the present revision petition has been filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

I find that the learned Rent Controller is not justified in law in dismissing the application of the tenant seeking leave to defend the petition u/s 13-A of the Act filed by the landlord. Once the tenant, prima facie, has disclosed such facts that petition u/s 13-A of the Act is not maintainable because the landlord ceased to be a specified landlord within the meaning of the Act and that application for condonation of delay is not maintainable. Both the contentions of the tenant are contentious and the learned Rent Controller ought to have given an opportunity to the tenant to defend the petition. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed and the order order of the learned Rent Controller is set aside with a direction that the learned Rent Controller will allow the tenant to defend the petition and thereafter shall decide the petition filed by the landlord u/s 13-A of the Act on merits. Parties are left to bear their own costs. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on April 8, 1991.