Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1085 (PNJ)

Surinder Kumar Garg v. Lal Kumar

2002-10-17

V.M.JAIN

body2002
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the landlord against the order passed by the Rent Controller, dismissing the ejectment petition of the landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Facts in brief are that petitioner landlord, claiming himself to be a specified landlord, filed ejectment petition under Section 13-A of the Act, seeking eviction of the tenant-respondent from the demised premises, on the ground that he required the said shop for his own use and occupation as he bonafide required the said shop to start his business of sale and purchase of two wheelers and other motor parts business. It appears that the respondent- tenant was given leave to contest the petition (as required under Section 18-A of the Act). Thereupon, respondent-tenant had filed written statement controverting the allegations contained in the petition and alleging therein that the landlord had filed two ejectment petitions under Section 13-A of the Act, one against Gurmukh Dass and the other against present respondent-tenant and that he could not recover possession from the respondent-tenant under Section 13-A of the Act, as he could exercise this right only qua one tenant. It was alleged that the petition was not maintainable. It was further alleged that the premises in dispute was a shop and not a residential or scheduled building and as such petition was not maintainable. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was also denied and it was alleged that the wife of the petitioner had rented out the premises to the respondent, claiming herself to be owner of the premises vide rent deed dated 18.5.1999. 3. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, Rent Controller found that the petitioner landlord was not entitled to seek ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the shop in question under Section 13-A of the Act, in-as-much as landlord was seeking ejectment of the tenant from the shop in question on the ground that he required the premises for running his own business, whereas under Section 13-A of the Act, the landlord could get the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he intends to reside in the residential/scheduled building for his own occupation. Aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, landlord has filed the present revision petition. 4. Aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, landlord has filed the present revision petition. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, I find no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Rent Controller. Section 13-A of the Act reads as under :- "13-A. Right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to accrue to certain persons. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, I find no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Rent Controller. Section 13-A of the Act reads as under :- "13-A. Right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to accrue to certain persons. - 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 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 : Provided that in case of death of the specified landlord, the widow or widower of such specified landlord and in the case of death of the widow or widower, a child or a grand child or a widowed daughter-in-law who was dependent upon such specified landlord at the time of his death shall be entitled to make an application under this Section to the Controller - (a) in the case of death of such specified landlord, before the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, within one year of such commencement; (b) in the case of death of such specified landlord, after such commencement, but before the date of his retirement, within one year of the date of his death; (c) in the case of death of such specified landlord, after such commencement and the date of his retirement, with one year of the date of such retirement; and on the date of such application the right to recover the possession of the residential building or scheduled building, as the case may be, which belonged to such specified landlord at the time of his death shall accrue to the applicant : Provided further that nothing in this section shall be so construed as conferring a right, on any person to recover possession of more than one residential or scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in part or parts : Provided further that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable period for putting the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand-child or widowed daughter-in-law in possession of the residential building or scheduled building, as the case may be, and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate." 5. A perusal of Section 13-A of the Act would clearly show that a specified landlord is entitled to the possession of a residential or scheduled building for his own occupation. In the present case, landlord had filed the ejectment petition only on the ground that he required the premises to run business in the shop in question. In my opinion, learned Rent Controller was perfectly justified in holding that under Section 13-A of the Act, landlord is not entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant from the shop on the ground that landlord required the shop in question for running his own business. 6. In view of the above finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.