Judgment- RANGANATH MISRA ( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted. ( 2 ) THE short question for consideration in this appeal at the instance of the landlord in a proceeding for eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is as to whether the appellant before us is a specified landlord as defined in S. 2 (hh) of the Act. The High court has decided against the landlord by relying upon the decision of this court in the case of D. N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh\ When this matter came before a two judge bench, on 16/08/1988 the following order was made: "this matter may be listed before a bench of three Honble Judges two weeks hence for consideration of the question in the light of the decision of this court in D. N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh" ( 3 ) S. 2 (hh) of the Act defines Specified landlord to mean: "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 a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. " ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the appellant was Reader to the Sessions Judge of Sangrur from where he retired on 30/09/1981. He was thus holding a post in connection with affairs of a State. He was member of a Mitakshara family and the house in question was tenanted out to the respondent by his father in July 1982, and upon his father dying in the following month the tenant attorned to the appellant. ( 5 ) S. 13-A of the Act provides: "where a specified landlord at any time, within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, whichever is later, applies to the Controller along with a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local. area in which he intends to reside to recover possession of his residential building or scheduled building, as the case may be, for his 326 own occupation, there shall accrue,, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, notwithstanding, anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether expressed or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately the possession of such residential building or scheduled building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts. . . " ( 6 ) THE amendment came into force with effect from 16/11/1985. The appellant applied for eviction on 13/05/1986. Thus, within one year of the enforcement of the Amending Act of 1985, the application for eviction was filed following the procedure laid down under the Act. Appellants contention which has been rejected in the courts below has been that all the ingredients of the definition of Specified landlord are satisfied and he should, therefore, have been admitted to be a specified landlord and given the benefit of the special procedure. The High court relied upon the following observations in Malhotra case "it has been urged before us on behalf of the respondent that at the relevant time i. e. after retirement of the respondent from service within one year of the date of commencement of the said Act he is the landlord of the appellant and as such he falls within the definition of S. 2 (hh) of the said Act and he becomes a specified landlord. This submission, in our view, cannot be sustained inasmuch as the words Specified landlord as used in S. 2 (hh) refer to the person in service of the Union who is a landlord at the time of his retirement from the public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of State. It cannot in any manner include an ex-serviceman who was not a specified landlord qua the tenant and the premises on or before the date of his retirement from the service of the Union. This has been very succinctly held by this court in the case of Mrs Winifred Ross v. Mrs Ivy Fonseca^ which has been referred to hereinbefore. It cannot in any manner include an ex-serviceman who was not a specified landlord qua the tenant and the premises on or before the date of his retirement from the service of the Union. This has been very succinctly held by this court in the case of Mrs Winifred Ross v. Mrs Ivy Fonseca^ which has been referred to hereinbefore. " ( 7 ) MALHOTRA case^ in terms relied upon an earlier decision of this court in Mrs Winifred Ross v. Mrs Ivy Fonseca^ in support of its view. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed that on the ratio laid down by this court in the two decisions referred to above the High court had come to the correct conclusion that on the facts the appellant could not be a specified landlord. It is now for consideration whether the cases of Winifred Ross and D. N. Malhotra have been correctly decided. ( 9 ) WINIFRED Ross case^ was considering S. 13-Alof the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act of 1947. S. 13a1 had been brought into the Act in 1975. The said S. provided: "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,- (A) a landlord who is a member of the armed forces of the Union, or who was such member and is duly retired (which term shall include premature retirement), shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises, on the ground that the premises are bona fide required by him for occupation by himself or any member of his family (which term shall include a parent or other relation ordinarily residing with him and dependent on him); and the court shall pass a decree for eviction on such ground if the landlord, at the hearing of the suit produces a certificate signed by the Head of his Service or his Commanding Officer to the effect that- (I) he is presently a member of the armed forces of the Union or be was such member and is now a retired ex-serviceman; ( 10 ) IN Malhotra case, this court was called upon to consider S. 13-AI of the very Act with which we are now concerned. On the basis of the ratio in Winifred Ross case*, this court came to the conclusion that until the landlord satisfied the test that he was a landlord qua the premises and the tenant at the time of his retirement or discharge from service, he would not be entitled to the benefit of S. 13-A of the Act. ( 11 ) IT is not disputed that the appellant retired on 30/09/1981. On the finding the appellant is right in his submission that this was not a case of transfer with an oblique motive but as the property belonged to a Mitakshara father, upon his death the property has come to his hands. This feature which is different from the facts appearing in the two reported decisions, however, would not persuade us to give a different meaning to the definition in S. 2 (hh ). In both the cases, for good reason this court came to the conclusion that the public officer should have been a landlord of the premises in question while in service. Admittedly, the appellant was not the landlord before he superannuated. ( 12 ) WE are of the view that the opinion of this court in Winifred Ross case is unassailable and, therefore, the appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of the special procedure in S. 13-A of the Act. ( 13 ) THE appeal fails and is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.