The City Club (Regd.) vs Mohinder Sain Chopra

J.V. Gupta, Acting C.J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, dated September 28, 1989, whereby the leave to contest the ejectment petition u/s 13-A of the Act was declined.

The landlord Mohinder Sain Chopra filed the ejectment petition on July 18, 1989, u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended (for abort the ''Act'') alleging that he retired on July 1, 1989 as Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepure. Along with the petition, he also filed the certificate dated July 11, 1989, issued by the Financial Commissioner, Home and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Chandigarh, to this effect that he has been retired from service w.e f July 1, 1989.

In the application filed by the tenant u/s 18-A of the Act for grant of permission to contest, it was pleaded that there was no proper certificate filed by the landlord as contemplated u/s 13-A of the Act. According to the tenant the competent authority to remove the landlord was the Govern r of Punjab and no certificate has been placed on record from the Governor. The second plea taken was that no proper notice u/s 18-A as such was issued as contemplated and, therefore, there was non-compliance of the statutory provisions and on that ground also the tenant was entitled leave to contest the ejectment petition. It was also contended that though no objection as such was taken in the affidavit that the demised premises was non-residential building but since it was let out to the City Club Pathankot, according to the learned counsel, from the very nature that it was let out to the City Club Pathankot, the premises could not be held to be residential building as such In support of his contentions he has referred to Messrs Delhi Cloth Mills and Ors. v. Lacchman Dass (1989 ) 96 P. L. R. 242.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, The ejectment application was filed u/s 13-A of the Act was registered as such as is evident from the order of the Rent Controller dated July 19, 1989. In any case, if the summons were not issued as prescribed under the schedule, the tenant could not make any grouse as he has not been denied the permission for leave to contest the ejectment application on that ground. The leave has been denied because he has failed to disclose such facts as would disentitle the landlord or from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession. As observed earlier, this plea was never taken by the tenant in the affidavit that the demised premises was a non-residential building. As regards the certificate of retirement, it was admitted by the tenant himself in his affidavit that the landlord has retired as alleged by him. Once it is so admitted by the tenant himself that the landlord has retired as alleged then the question of proper certificate as such looses its significance Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with costs.

However, the tenant is allowed two months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period the vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord and rent for the said period will be paid in advance by the 10th of every month.