Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1082 (PNJ)

Harjinder Pal Singh v. Rent Controller, Kharar

2001-10-04

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a civil revision filed by the specified landlord and it has been directed against the order dated 21st December, 2000 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kharar, who allowed the application of the tenant for leave to defend. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner : Petitioner Shri Harinder Pal Singh Saini is a specified landlord and he filed as ejectment application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondent- tenant Principal Ranjit Singh Sandhu. The tenant was served. He filed an application for seeking permission of the learned Rent Controller to defend the rent petition. The application has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller for the reasons given in Para Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the impugned order dated 21.12.2000, which are reproduced as under : "3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judicial file carefully. After having done so, I am of the opinion that the applicant/defendant has filed the application to leave to defend on the very next date i.e. on 10.8.2000 after receiving the summons of petition on 9.8.2000, which is admitted by respondent/petitioner which is within time. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has quoted an authority i.e. P.L.R. Vol. XCI, 1987-1, page 344 of Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein it was held that the tenant must give the particulars of the alleged sufficient accommodation with the landlord and the details of the other property alleged to have been vacated by other tenants and rented out by the landlord. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the respondent has not given the detailed particulars as to how the landlord has the sufficient accommodation. 5. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the respondent has not given the detailed particulars as to how the landlord has the sufficient accommodation. 5. The above said authority is not applicable to the instant case since in this case the tenant has not yet even alleged that the applicant has got sufficient accommodation but he simply wants the leave to defend and it is only if the leave is granted that the defendant shall be able to put up his case and in the instant case (unlike the above said authority) the respondent has not yet submitted any plea of sufficient accommodation with the landlord, therefore, the detail or particulars cannot be expected in this case. Accordingly, in my opinion the application to leave to defend has been filed within time and the same is to be allowed and as such the same is hereby allowed." Aggrieved by the order, the present revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, dispose of this civil revision. As I stated above, this is a petition under Section 13-A of the Act which gives right to the landlord to recover immediate possession of the residential or scheduled building. In order to dispose of such type of application, a special procedure has been prescribed under section 18-A of the Act. It will be appropriate for me to reproduce sub-section (5) of Section 18-A of the Act which runs as follows : "The Controller may give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand- child or widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the residential building or scheduled building, as the case may be, under section 13-A." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application and the affidavit filed by the tenant before the Rent Controller does not disclose any cause of action in the light of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 18-A of the Act and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on the basis of it, is erroneous. 5. 5. There is a merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner because a reading of sub-section (5) of Section 18-A of the Act would show that it is mandatory on the part of the tenant to state in his affidavit by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the specified landlord seeking ejectment. In other words, the tenant must raise a triable defence to show that the need of the specified landlord was not a bona fide one. Now, let us examine as to what has been stated by the tenant when he moved the application before the Rent Controller. His application is Annexure P-3 supported by an affidavit Annexure P-4. It will be appropriate for me to reproduce the relevant portion of the application dated 10.8.2000 which is pari-materia with the affidavit of the same date: 1. "That the above mentioned petition is pending in this Honble Court and now the same is fixed for hearing for 29.9.2000. 2. That applicant/respondent has received the summons of this petition on 9.8.2000. 3. That the facts disclosed in the petition are false and the petition is most likely to be rejected. 4. That the valuable rights of the applicant are involved in this case. 5. That the allegations contained in the petition are altogether wrong and the respondent/applicant does not admit the claim of the petitioner and as such wants to contest the petition/case. 6. That the application is within time. Hence it is most respectfully prayed that the present application may kindly be accepted and the tenant/respondent be allowed to defend the case on merits, in the ends of justice. Note : An affidavit duly attested is attached herewith." 6. A reading of the application and the affidavit would show that this application is totally barren. Also the tenant wants to prima facie defeat the right of the specified landlord from claiming possession of the demised premises. The tenant has simply stated that the facts disclosed in the petition are false and the petition is most likely to be rejected. How and under what circumstances, there is no indication. It is also not even averred in the application that the need of the specified landlord is not genuine or that he is occupying any other residential premises which can suffice his need. How and under what circumstances, there is no indication. It is also not even averred in the application that the need of the specified landlord is not genuine or that he is occupying any other residential premises which can suffice his need. In this situation, I must hold that the application dated 10.8.2000 suffered from various infirmities. It may not be wrong on my part if I say that this is not an application or affidavit in the eyes of law. Once the application and the affidavit are held that these two create a triable defence, such an application was supposed to be rejected and the Rent Controller committed a patent illegality in allowing the application of the tenant. With the rejection of the application of the tenant to leave to defend, the irresistible conclusion is that the petition under Section 13-A of the Act is to be allowed. Let the learned Rent Controller may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Rent Controller on the date already fixed there.