Satish Chander Bedi vs Madan Lal Saini

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1737 of 1992, 1858 of 1992 and 1859 of 1992.

These are tenants'' revision petitions directed against the order of the Rent Controller, allowing the petitions u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

In brief, the facts are that respondent, Madan Lal Saini, filed ejectment petition against the petitioners u/s 13- A of the Act, seeking their ejectment from different portions in their occupation on the ground that he is a specified landlord as defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act and is due to retire on 1.12.1990, and therefore, entitled to eject the tenants. The tenants-petitioners on receipts of the summons, filed affidavits seeking leave to contest the ejectment petitions on various grounds as set out therein. One of the grounds taken was that the sale-deed in favour of the landlord, on the basis of which he claimed to be owner, is a Sham and paper transaction. This allegation was made on the basis that earlier the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the landlord were owners as per some Civil Court decree, and they have now sold the property to the landlord and that too after they had failed in their ejectment petitions, filed against the petitioners. The other main ground on which leave to contest was sought was that the accommodation in possession of the landlord in his ancestral house was sufficient for his requirement. The Rent Controller on finding that no triable issues arises from the affidavits so filed by the tenants, refused to grant leave to contest the petitions, All the three ejectment petitions were decided on the same day and in consequence thereof, ejectment orders were passed against the tenants. Now, the tenants have impugned their ejectment orders in the present revision petition.

Mrs. Alka Sarin and Mr. K. G. Chaudbary, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners, contended that triable issues were raised by the tenants and, therefore, the Rent Controller ought to have allowed the tenants to contest the petitions.

On the other hand, Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, Counsel for the landlord argued that the accommodation in possession of the landlord is not sufficient for his requirement, keeping in view the size of his family. He, thus contended that the order passed by the Rent Controller should not be interfered with.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that the revision petitions deserves to succeed. Tenants in their affidavits, wherein they sought leave to contest, have averred that the sale in favour of the landlord is a paper and Sham transaction. It has also been stated that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law had failed in their ejectment petitions which they had filed against the tenants and, therefore, this was a device which was adopted to evict the tenants through the present petitions. The earlier litigation between mother-in-law of the landlord and the tenants as well as the civil court decree on the basis of which mother in Jaw and sister-in-law had become owners and sale-deed in favour of the landlord has, indeed, a material bearing on the point in controversy and it needs further examination as to whether the sale in favour of the landlord was a bona fide one. This can be decided only if the tenants are granted leave to contest the petitioners. These revision petitions, otherwise also, have to be allowed in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Zenobia Bhanot Vs. Surinder Sharma, wherein it has been held that "Section 13-A is a special remedy to recover immediate possession of residential building given to certain persons who are specified landlord, it is to be construed strictly. Even u/s 13-A, it has been provided that specified landlord has a right to recover immediate possession of such residential building or scheduled building or any part or parts of such building, if it is let out in part or parts. The second proviso reproduced above makes it further clear that She landlord is not entitled to recover pessession of more than one residential building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in part or parts ". Thus, in the light of judgment of this Court in Zenobia Bhanot''s case (supra), the Rent Controller shall have to determine the maintainability of the ejectment petitions filed u/s 13-A of the Act, as the same were filed on the same date for ejecting three different tenants from different portions of the building.

Consequently, the revision petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The Rent Controller shall afford reasonable opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if any, in support of their respective contention and thereafter, decide the matter without any delay. No costs.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 23.9.1993.