Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 163 (PNJ)

Jawand Singh Bhatia v. Narinder Singh

2003-01-29

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Jawani Singh Bhatia, (hereinafter referred to as the landlord), has filed the instant revision petition against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, vide which the ejectment application filed by him under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Amendment), 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1985) for eviction of Narinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) from the premises in question on the ground that he is specified landlord and requires the premises for his own use and occupation, has been dismissed. 2. Admittedly, in the present case, the landlord was retired as Tehsildar (Sales) from the services of Haryana Government on 1.5.1974. Much after his retirement, he let out the premises in question for commercial purpose to the tenant @ Rs. 300/- per month vide rent deed dated 3.6.1979. On 6.10.1986, the landlord filed the present petition under Section 13-A of the Act of 1985 for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he is specified landlord and requires the premises for his personal use and occupation as he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the area where the property in question is situated. The tenant contested the aforesaid petition on the ground that the building in question is not a residential building. It was let out to him by the landlord for commercial purpose. Therefore, the landlord cannot seek his ejectment under the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act of 1985. Secondly, he submitted that the landlord retired from the Government service in the year 1974 and much after his retirement, he rented out the premises to him in the year 1979, therefore, he cannot deemed to be a specified landlord and seek his ejectment under the Act of 1985. 3. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the evidence produced by both the parties, dismissed the ejectment application filed by the landlord. It was held that the building in question is not a residential building and the same was let out by the landlord for commercial purposes, therefore, the tenant cannot be ejected therefrom. 3. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the evidence produced by both the parties, dismissed the ejectment application filed by the landlord. It was held that the building in question is not a residential building and the same was let out by the landlord for commercial purposes, therefore, the tenant cannot be ejected therefrom. It was also held that the landlord does not fall within the category of specified landlord as he retired from the Government service in the year 1974 after attaining the age of super reunuation and much after his retirement, he leased out the premises in question to the tenant in the year 1979. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. 5. I am of the opinion that there is no force in the revision petition, filed by the landlord and the same is liable to be dismissed. In order to derive the benefits of provisions of Section 13-A of the Act of 1985, it has to be proved by the landlord that he falls under the definition of specified landlord as defined in Section 2 (hh) of the Act of 1985 on the date when he filed the ejectment application. Section 13-A of the Act of 1985 provides that such a specified landlord can seek ejectment of the tenant from the residential building 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 the commencement of the Act of 1985, whichever is later. Therefore, the present petition was not filed within the period as stipulated under Section 13-A of the Act. The Honble Supreme Court in Dr. DM. Malhotra v. Mr. Kartar Singh, (1988-1)93 P.L.R. 394 (S.C.), has held that the benefit of eviction of a tenant in a summary proceeding under Section 13-A of the Act of 1985 on the ground being specified landlord cannot be given to the Ex-Service-man, who let out the premises after his retirement. In the above cited case, the specified landlord retired from service in 1965 and the premises was let out by him in the year 1968. In the above cited case, the specified landlord retired from service in 1965 and the premises was let out by him in the year 1968. While rejecting the claim of the landlord, the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "This clearly evinces that the respondent was not a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the said Act as the appellant was inducted as a tenant after his retirement from the service of the Union. Section 13-A of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 in clear terms enjoins that "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 said Act makes an application to recover possession of the building or scheduled building, the Controller will direct the tenant to deliver possession of the house to him". Therefore to be entitled to have the benefit of Section 13-A of the Act the landlord-respondent will have to fulfil the first qualification i.e., he must be a specified landlord in respect of the house in question on the date of his retired from the service of the Union i.e., in 1963. The landlord, as it appears has not fulfilled this requirement in as much as after his retirement from services of the Union he has let out the premises to the tenant-appellant. 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 Section 2(hh) of the said Act and he becomes a specified landlord. This submission, in our view, cannot be sustained in as much as the words "specified landlord" as used in Section 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." 6. 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." 6. In view of the aforesaid decision, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, who has held that the landlord was not specified landlord at the time of his retirement and he cannot be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act of 1985. 7. Learned counsel for the landlord tried to persuade this Court that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller about the nature of the building being non-residential is not correct, but he could not convince this Court on this aspect, as in the rent note itself the landlord described the building in question as commercial and rented out the same for the commercial purpose. Be as it may, once it is held that the landlord is not specified landlord and is not entitled to maintain the application under Section 13-A of the Act of 1985, as discussed above, it becomes immaterial whether the building is residential or commercial and by reversing the finding on this fact, the petition cannot be allowed. Therefore, I find no merit in this contention of learned counsel for the landlord. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.