Shri Parkash vs Mrs. Bimla

R.S. Mongia, J.—The petitioner is owner of house No. 2331, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. He let out the barsati Portion of the said house to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- in the year 1991. He was working as a Personal Assistant in the Union Territory Secretariat, Chandigarh, and was to retire on January 31, 1996. He filed a petition u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (As applicable to Union Territory Chandigarh) (in short the Act) for ejecting the respondent from the premises in question. It may be observed here that the ground floor portion of the house in question was in occupation of the younger son of the petitioner while the first floor of the house in question was in occupation of the eldest son where they were staying with their families. The petitioner was in occupation of a Government accommodation. He alleged that after retirement he is to stay with his sons and would require the demised premises for his own use and occupation. It was further stated in the petition that he was not having any sufficient accommodation in the local area of U.T. Chandigarh.

The respondent-tenant contested the application and filed an application for leave to contest the petition u/s 18-A which was allowed by the Rent Controller on March 16, 1996. A revision petition (civil revision No. 1447 of 1996), filed by the landlord against that order was dismissed by this Court on February 6, 1997.

The rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition. Hence, the present revision petition.

The only ground for non-suiting the petitioner is that in his petition he did not state that he did not own or possess any suitable accommodation but he had only stated that he had no sufficient accommodation in the local area. The fact that the petitioner had retired from Government service on January 31, 1996 and that he was in occupation of Government accommodation was not disputed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the fact that the petitioner had pleaded that he did not own or possess any other sufficient accommodation, under the circumstances of this case, could not be said to be not complying with the requirements of Section 13-A of the Act which uses the words ''suitable accommodation''. It is not the case of the respondent that in fact the petitioner was in possession of any other accommodation suitable or sufficient excepting the Government Accommodation or the house in question which was being occupied by his sons and the portion thereof is the demised premises.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the requirement of Section 13-A of the Act is that the landlord must plead that he is not in ownership or possession of any other suitable accommodation and there is a lot of difference between suitable accommodation and sufficient accommodation.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition is liable to succeed. If a specified landlord pleads that he is neither in ownership nor in possession of a sufficient accommodation, it will include that he is not in possession or ownership of a suitable accommodation. Supposing a specific landlord u/s 13-A of the Act was to state that he is in occupation of another house but that house is insufficient, it will be implicit in this that the particular accommodation is not suitable ''insufficient'' accommodation ipso facto is not ''suitable'' accommodation. Vice versa may, in given circumstances, be not true. A particular specified landlord may be in occupation of a ''sufficient'' accommodation yet it may not be ''suitable''. In these circumstances also the landlord would be entitled to eject the tenant u/s 13-A of the Act because the accommodation in his possession may be sufficient but may not be suitable and on that ground which is available u/s 13-A of the Act he would be entitled to get the premises vacated.

In the present case, it is not disputed that the landlord was a Government Servant and retired on January 31, 1996. He was already in Government accommodation which necessarily he had to vacate on retirement. There is no averment by the respondent-tenant that the petitioner is in occupation of any other suitable accommodation or for that matter any other accommodation. A retired government servant cannot be left at the mercy of the tenants. He wants to lead peaceful life after retirement by living in the house he might have constructed for that purpose. If the landlord has an accommodation in part of which his family members are staying, he can certainly get that portion vacated which is with a tenant u/s 13-A of the Act and live with his family members. u/s 13-A of the Act, the Rent Controller is not to go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation. It is the land lord''s requirement regarding the occupation of the house after retirement. Consequently, I am of the view that the Rent Controller was not legally correct to non-suit the petitioner on the ground that he had not pleaded in the petition that he was not in occupation of any other suitable accommodation.

For the foregoing reasons, I allow this revision petition and order the ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises under her tenancy. However, in the circumstances of this case, one month''s time is granted to the tenant to handover the vacant possession on payment of due rent and other charge, if any.