Sh. Sukhdev Singh vs Jagjit Singh Saini

J.V. Gupta, Acting C.J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom eviction order has been passed u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as amended (hereinafter called the Act). The landlord Jagjit Singh remed as Superintendent Grade-I from Punjab Civil Secretraiat on 31-7-1984. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was made applicable to Union Territory, Chandigarh on 2-12-1986. With in one year thereof he filed the eviction application on 20-10-1987 u/s 13-A of the Act alleging that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area concerned in which he intends to reside. Notice was issued to the tenant who applied for leave to contest, which was allowed.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant it was pleaded that the landlord does not require the demised premises which consists of two rooms on the ground floor House No. 3301 in Sector 23-D, Chandigarh, as since the date of his retirement he is residing in Government house allotted to his wife, where his children also live therein. According to the tenant the accommodation in the Government house is more than sufficient for the requirement of the landlord and, therefore, there was no necessity to seek his ejectment. According to the tenant earlier the said Government accommodation was allotted to the landlord himself. On his retirement, the same accommodation was allotted to his wife.

The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that nothing has been brought on the record by the tenant as to disentitle the landlord from obtaining the order for recovery of possession u/s 13-A of the Act. Consequently, eviction order was passed on 28th of April, 1989.

During the pendency of this petition the tenant Sukhdev Singh filed an affidavit dated 10-8-1939 in which it was stated that one Satinder Mohan who was residing in one room and kitchen at ground floor in the house in question has vacated the said room and kitchen in March, 1987 after the retirement of the landlord Jagjit Singh and rise said portion was given to Gurdawara Kirtan Parchar Committee on rent. He further stated therein that in the ground floor itself one Mr. Jagdish Chand was also residing in the front room of the said house and he also vacated the said room in May, 1988, which accommodation has now been made available to the landlord.

In the counter affidavit filed by the landlord Jagjit Singh dated 17-8-1989 he denied that the alleged portion vacated by Satinder Mohan was let out Jo Gurudwara Kirtan Prachar Committee. According to the landlord the said portion is in his possession. He also denied that front portion was in possession of Jagdish Chand as tenant. It was in possession of one who vacated the said room, in March, 1960 on the request of the landlord. It was specifically denied that the said rooms was given on rent to the above said Gurudwara Kirtan Prachar.

Learned counsel for the tenant petitioner submitted that in view of the subsequent events which have not been denied by the landlord, two rooms in the first floor and three rooms and a kitchen in the ground floor have been made available to the landlord by the two tenants and, therefore, no eviction order could be passed u/s 13-A of the Act as the said accommodation was sufficient and suitable for him, Moreover, according to the learned counsel, the landlord, was entitled to evict one of the tenants only u/s 13-A and since the two tenants have already vacated, the landlord was not entitled to eject the present tenant. In support of his contention reliance was placed upon Om Parkash v. Wazir Chand 1969 (1) R.C.R. 549.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that u/s 13-A the landlord is entitled to evict his tenant if he does not own sod possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area concerned According to the learned counsel, the Government accommodation allotted to his wife could not be said to be owned by (he landlord and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to evict his tenant u/s 13-A. Moreover, the sufficiency or insufficiency of the accommodation is not to be considered in proceedings u/s 13-A. It is only the suitability of the accommodation which is to be seen by the Rent Controller and that is to the subjective satisfaction of the landlord. Thus argued the learned counsel hat given other two tenants have vacated the premises of their own, it was of no consequence as the landlord was entitled to reside in his own house after retirement and in case he fails to occupy the same, ample safeguards have been provided u/s 19 of the Act as amended. In support of his contention be referred to Raghunat Chander Sharma v. Harmesh Kumar (1989 96 P.L.R. 325 and Ram Nash v. Dr. Baldev Raj Chawla and Ors. 1985 (1) R.C.R. 500.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the bar. I do not find any merit in this petition. u/s 13-A the landlord is entitled to evict his tenant if he does not own and possess any suitable accommodation in the local area concerned. It is not disputed that the landlord does not own and possess any other salable accommodation in the urban area concerned. The Government accommodation which has been made available to the wife cannot be said to be owned and possessed by the landlord as such. As regards the accommodation made available by the two tenants who have vacated the premises of their own does not debar the landlord to seek ejectment of his third tenant u/s 13-A. The judgment referred to above i.e. 1989(1) R.C.R. 549 has no applicability to the facts of the present case because the other two tenants have vacated the premises not through the Court but otherwise. The landlord is entitled to eject his tenant through the Court by making only one application after his retirement. Not only that if the present application of the landlord is dismissed then be will not be able to eject his tenant from the building in dispute as a retired person which is the only house owned by him. Thus viewed from any angle the landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant u/s 13-A being a specified landlord and having no other suitable accommodation owned and possessed by him. As observed earlier the suitability of the accommodation is for the landlord to see which has been so found by the Rent Controller as well. There is no illegality in the said finding as to be interfered with under subsection (8) of Section 18 as the scope is very limited as provided therein.

Consequently the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed two months time to vacate the premises provided the tenant gives an undertaking before the Rent Controller within a fortnight that after the expiry of the said period vacant possession of the premises would be handed over to the landlord and, at the same time, also pays or deposits the arrears of rent, if any. For future, the rent will be paid in advance by the 10th of every month.