Shri Om Parkash Tuli vs Shri Vidya Bhushan Nagar

V.K. Jhanji, J.—Om Parkash Tuli, petitioner-landlord filed a petition u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground that he was serving in the Food Corporation of India at Delhi and has retired from service on 30-11-1983. In his ejectment application he has stated that he intends to settle down at Jalandhar and the premises in dispute are required by him for his own use and occupation and for the occupation of his other family members. He further stated that he has seven daughters and two sons. One of his sons and three daughters are married while the other children are unmarried. Three of the children are school going and they need separate accommodation of their studies. Certificate issued by the Food Corporation of India dated 7-5-1986 showing that he had retired from service with effect from 30-11-1983 along with an affidavit duly attested was attached with the plaint. He also stated that he does not own or possess any residential building in the urban area of Jalandhar except the house in dispute and has not vacated any residential accommodation in the urban area of Jalandhar after the commencement of the Act.

The tenant-respondent filed an application seeking leave to defend the petitioner. Learned Rent Controller granted leave to the tenant to defend the petition. In pursuance thereof the tenant filed written statement contesting the petition on the ground that the petitioner is not a specified landlord as the employees working in the Food Corporation of India are not covered by the definition of specified landlord. It was also denied that the premises are required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation.

Parties to the petition led evidence in support of their case.

Learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence brought on the record, found that the landlord retired from service with effect from 30-11-1983 but he is not a specified landlord within the meaning of section 2(hh) of the Act. However, the issue as to whether the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation was concerned, the same was decided in favour of the landlord as the learned Rent Controller was of the view that he cannot go into the question of bona fide of the landlord in a petition u/s 13-A of the Act. As a result thereof, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application of the petitioner. The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of the learned Rent Controller dismissing his petition u/s 13-A of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Food Corporation of India is the instrumentality of the State and the employees working in the said Corporation are holding appointment in a public service and thus the finding of learned Rent Controller that the petitioner is not a specified landlord is clearly erroneous.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has defended the order of the learned Rent Controller.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I find that the petitioner is a specified landlord and was entitled to maintain petition u/s 13-A of the Act. Specified landlord is defined in section 2(hh) of the Act which reads as under :-

"2(hh). Specified landlord means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of State".

Admittedly, Food Corporation of India is an instrumentality of the State comprehanded in expression ''other Authorities'' in Article 12 of the Constitution of India particularly when the Corporation is wholly owned and controlled by Government of India. The petitioner who retired from the service of the Corporation would be termed a servant of Government. Therefore, findings of the learned trial Court cannot be sustained in law and is set aside.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the certificate attached with the petition showing the petitioner having retired from service with effect from 30-11-1983 is not from a competent authority as the certificate was to be from the authority which was competent to remove the petitioner from service. The petitioner, along with his petition u/s 13-A of the Act attached a certificate dated 7-5-1986 showing that he retired from the service of the Corporation as Assistant Manager (Movt.) on 30-11-1983. The said certificate bears the signatures of one Shri Gurmangat Singh, Assistant Manager (EI). He has signed for Personnel Manager. Even otherwise the petitioner has proved from the evidence of Shri A. S. Khurana, Assistant Manager, who proved from the official record that the petitioner retired on 30-11-1983 from the post of Assistant Manager, Food Corporation of India. Moreover, it is also not the case of the respondent that the petitioner has not retired from the service. In view of this matter, respondent cannot make a grievance that certificate is not from the authority which was competent to remove the petitioner from service.

With regard to the question as to whether the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation, learned Rent Controller, on the basis of judgment of this Court in Kapil Dev Gupta v. Ram Kishan (1988) 93 P. L. R. 606, refused to go into the question of bonafide need of the landlord. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of D. B. in K.G.P. Pillai Vs. Subhash Chander Pathania, , in which a reference has been made to a decision of the Supreme Court where special leave was granted with the following observations :-

"Special leave granted. Having heard counsel for both the sides and also perused the material, we are of the opinion that this is a case where the Court below ought not to have refused leave to contest. The landlord is occupying the ground-floor besides the entire second floor. The tenant is occupying the first floor. The question is whether the landlord requires the first floor also. This question, in our opinion, could be properly determined only by granting leave to the tenant to contest. There is no need to take a summary procedure since it is a case of additional accommodation."

He thus contended that learned Rent Controller ought to have given a finding as to whether the petitioner requires the premises for his own use and occupation or not and in absence of such a finding, no order of ejectment can be passed in favour of the landlord.

The present case is not a case of additional evidence. The petitioner was granted leave to contest the ejectment petition. Petitioner-landlord not only in his petition u/s 13-A of the Act has categorically averred that he has a big family and he owns 10 other residential house at Jalandhar, where he intends to settle down with his family but he again reiterated this fact in his statement made in the Court. In cross-examination, he has stated that he does not own or possess any house in the urban area of Jalandhar and he intends to reside at Jalandhar. With regard to accommodation in Delhi, the landlord has stated in his statement that the same does not belong to him and secondly it is insufficient for his requirement including that of the members of his family. In view of this matter, I find that the petitioner is entitled to an order of ejectment u/s 13-A of the Act.

Consequently, the revision petition is accepted. The order of the learned Rent Controller is set aside and an order of ejectment is passed against the respondent. However, the respondent is granted two months'' time to vacate the premises provided he deposits the entire arrear of rent within one month from today in the Court of learned Rent Controller.