Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1043 (PNJ)

Suraj Bhan v. Joginder Sarup

2004-09-14

M.M.KUMAR

body2004
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, the Act) has been preferred by the tenant-petitioner and it challenges order dated 23.7.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Sangrur directing ejectment of the tenant-petitioner by accepting the prayer made by the landlord-respondent who had retired from service on 31.12.1999 as an Agricultural Officer (Development) from Patiala under the Punjab Government. The Rent Controller has found that documents concerning his retirement produced by the landlord-respondent have been proved as Exs.P1 to P3 by the concerned official of the department. Even no plea in the written statement was taken by the tenant-petitioner controverting the issuance of retirement certificate or that it was not issued by a competent authority. Therefore, it has been found that the landlord-respondent is a specified landlord under Section 13-A of the Act. No dispute with regard to the aforementioned findings have been raised before me. 2. The other findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller are that there is a family settlement dated 14.2.1983 and the judgment concerning family settlement in Civil Suit No. 70 dated 23.4.1983, decided on 6.8.1983 titled as Rajinder Sarup Bhalla V/s. Amar Chand has been proved as Ex.P6 and alongwith decree sheet Ex.P7. It has also been held that the filing of earlier petition on 8.9.1995 for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation which was dismissed on 2.12.1998 did adversely affect the right of the landlord-respondent to invoke special provisions for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner under Section 18-A of the Act which might be in the nature of res judicata or constructive res judicata. The reason is not far to seek because the petition was filed by the father of the landlord-respondent on 8.9.1995. After his death, the landlord-respondent has stepped into the shoes of his father and the petition was dismissed on 2.12.1998. It is, thus, obvious that the landlord-respondent had not by then acquired the right to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Act because he retired on 31.12.1999 and he could have filed the petition within one year preceding his retirement and within one year after his retirement. It is, thus, obvious that the landlord-respondent had not by then acquired the right to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Act because he retired on 31.12.1999 and he could have filed the petition within one year preceding his retirement and within one year after his retirement. Even otherwise, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Rent Controller would be completely misplaced because the building was not found to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 3. Mr. Avnish Mittal, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the landlord-respondent could have filed only one petition for ejectment of the tenant. Therefore, the petition filed before the Rent Controller by the landlord-respondent on 23.12.2000 was absolutely barred as earlier he has filed ejectment petition on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. He has also made a reference to other two petitions filed on 19.12.1998 and 23.12.2000 by the landlord-respondent claiming arrears of rent. According to the learned counsel, when those two petitions were dismissed, then the ground as specified landlord envisaged by Section 13-A of the Act was available to the landlord-respondent as he had already retired on 31.12.1999. Later on the landlord-respondent could not have filed any petition on 23.12.2000 under Section 13-A of the Act (the petition leading to the present proceedings). In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh V/s. Jagjit Singh Saini, 1991 1 RCR 566. The learned counsel has also argued that once the building is admitted by the landlord-respondent to be unfit and unsafe, he could not have filed the petition for claiming possession under Section 13-A of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in the case of Satya Parkash Mehta V/s. Mela Ram, (1993-1)103 P.L.R. 281. 4. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that this petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. There are categorical findings that the landlord-respondent is a specified landlord which have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner. The landlord-respondent has retired from the Agriculture Department, Punjab on 31.12.1999 where he was working as an Agricultural Officer. There are categorical findings that the landlord-respondent is a specified landlord which have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner. The landlord-respondent has retired from the Agriculture Department, Punjab on 31.12.1999 where he was working as an Agricultural Officer. In this regard the statement of Narsingh Lal PW-2 is worth notice, who in his affidavit stated that the landlord-respondent was retired on 31.12.1999 from the Punjab Government and he referred to order No. 3/5/99-Kha ba-1(4)17898 dated 24.12.1999. He also referred to order dated 31.12.1999 and his PPO No. 127768/PB. The retirement certificate was sent by Narsingh Lal PW2 which had been issued by Shri Narinder Singh Dhillon, the then Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala. The witness duly identified the signatures of Shri Narinder Singh Dhillon as he has seen Shri Dhillon signing in his official capacity. Those documents were exhibited as Exs.P1, P2 and P3. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of aforesaid evidence has recorded the following findings:- "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that fact remained admitted in this case that the petitioner retired as a Government employee and the certificates/letters have been proved as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 by the concerned official of the department by proving the record. The said record has not been rebutted by the respondent. The respondent has not taken the plea in the written reply about the issuance of any certificate by the improper authority. No counter evidence has been led to show that the certificate was not issued by the competent authority. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner falls within the category of specified landlord. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the applicant/petitioner and against the respondent." 5. It was also proved on record that there is a family settlement dated 14.2.1983. The aforesaid deed of settlement was produced in Civil Suit No. 76 of 23.4.1983. On the basis of the family settlement dated 14.2.1983 and the Civil Court decree, the landlord-respondent was allocated his share of two houses, one of which is the demised house. The landlord-respondent has sold the other house to his brother Shri Ram Paul Bhalla in 1997. As the petitioner has no other house and he wanted to live at Sangrur which is home town and where he has been living in a rented accommodation. The landlord-respondent has sold the other house to his brother Shri Ram Paul Bhalla in 1997. As the petitioner has no other house and he wanted to live at Sangrur which is home town and where he has been living in a rented accommodation. His family has been staying at Patiala and with the availability of the demised house, the whole family could live together in the demised house. Therefore, I find that there is no legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller. 6. A perusal of Section 13-A of the Act would show that a specified landlord like the landlord-respondent could apply to the Rent Controller for recovery of immediate possession of a residential or scheduled building within one year preceding his retirement or within one year after the date of his retirement. He is required to produce a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement. The petition before the Rent Controller is required to be supported by an affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area where he intends to reside and occupy, for his own use after recovering possession of residential/scheduled building. The provision has been given a overriding effect and it is a non-obstante clause. It is evident that the landlord-respondent is a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the Act and all necessary ingredients of Section 13-A of the Act have been set out in the petition. In this regard reliance could be placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhattal V/s. Rakesh Kumar Jain, (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 316 (S.C.). Therefore, there is no merit in this petition which may warrant admission and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. The first contention raised on behalf of the tenant-petitioner is liable to be rejected because this Court in Sukhdev Singhs case (supra) has not laid down any proposition of law that a landlord could be debarred from filing ejectment petition under Section 13-A of the Act. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the only observation made by this Court is that the landlord could have filed only one petition for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner as a specified landlord. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the only observation made by this Court is that the landlord could have filed only one petition for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner as a specified landlord. In the instant case, the landlord-respondent has filed only one petition by invoking Section 13-A of the Act. The other argument based on the judgment is Satya Parkash Mehtas case (supra) would also not require any detailed consideration because when the petition for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner was filed on the ground that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, then the landlord-respondent has not yet acquired the qualification of a specified landlord. The aforementioned petition was dismissed on 2.12.1998 and the landlord-respondent has retired from service on 31.12.1999. Similarly, I find that filing of a petition for payment of arrears of rent would also not constitute a basis for raising the plea in the nature of res judicata or constructive res judicata as no issue has been decided in those two cases. In those cases after filing of the petition, the tenant-petitioner tendered rent and the petitions were rendered infructuous. Moreover, no record of earlier two petitions, reply or replication has been produced. 8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed.