Sham Lal vs Kashmiri Lal

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated October 13, 1988, whereby the application filed on behalf of tenant-Petitioner seeking permission to contest the ejectment application filed u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') was dismissed.

Kashmiri Lal landlord-Respondent filed eviction petition u/s 13-A of the Act seeking ejectment of his tenant Sham Lal from the premises in dispute on the ground that he is a specified landlord having retired as peon from the department of Agriculture, Punjab, on 29th February, 1988, and he requires the premises in question for his personal use and occupation and as he does not own or possess any other residential house in the urban area of Chandigarh. He also filed an affidavit in support of his averments made in the petition u/s 13-A of the Act along with certificate of retirement. The tenant-Petitioner moved an application for leave to defend. Therein he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties though it was not denied that the landlord has retired from service. He also did not challenge that the landlord personally required the premises in question for his personal use and occupation. The plea taken by the tenant was that there was nothing on the record to show as to when the sewerage connection was given to the house in question and whether a period of five years has elapsed since the grant of sewerage connection of the premises in dispute. According to the tenant, the buildings whose sewerage connections are given within four years were exempted from the purview of the Act u/s 3 thereof.

The learned Rent Controller took the view that the application filed by the specified landlord is not liable to be rejected on the ground that the period of five years has not elapsed since the date of grant of sewerage connection as Section 13-A of the Act is applicable notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force. Consequently, the application filed by the tenant to seek permission to contest was dismissed whereas the application filed by the landlord for ejectment was allowed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the building was exempted u/s 3 of the Act from the operation thereof the application filed u/s 13- A was not maintainable.

5 After hearing the learned Counsel 1 do not find any merit in this petition. Section 13-A provides, inter alia, that a specified landlord at any time within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirment or after his retirement but within one year from the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1985, which-ever is later, may apply to the Rent Controller that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside or recover possession of his own occupation, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, notwith standing anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, a right to recover immediately such residential building. It is, therefore, evident that Section 13-A applies notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force. That being so, even if it is assumed that there was any exemption to the building u/s 3 of the Act, Section 13-A will still be applicable.

In this view of matter, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction as provided under Sub-Section 8 of Section 18-A of the Act. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed one months time to vacate the premises, provided he files an under taking in writing within a forthright that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord and the arrears of rent if any, are paid up to-date.