Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1670 (PNJ)

Kushal Takhar & Others v. Gurinder Singh

2010-05-14

S.D.ANAND

body2010
Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for the ejectment of the petitioners-tenants (who are legal representatives of the original tenant upon whom the tenancy devolved on the death of the latter) on the authority of provisions of Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (herein after referred to as "the Act"). The petition came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 12.6.2009. 2. The petitioners are in revision. 3. The uncontroverted facts may be noticed in the first instance to facilitate proper appreciation of the controversy. The respondent-landlord, a member of the IPS retired from the Government service with effect from 28.2.2009. Prior to the actual date of retirement, he was in correspondence with the Government of Mauritius for appointment as the National Security Advisor to the Government of Mauritius. The appointment order dated 24.4.2009 (Ex. P6) came to be issued during the period of currency of public service of the respondent-landlord who, his formal retirement on 28.8.2009 not withstanding, continued to be on the assignment aforementioned. The assignment afore mentioned is on year to year basis is terminable "either at one months notice by either party or at any time by mutual agreement." 4. The essential controversy agitated before this Court is about whether the respondent- landlord is competent to invoke the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act in the context of his date of superannuation from public service i.e. 28.2.2009 or whether those provisions could validly come into play only with effect from the date of his superannuation from his present assignment as National Security Advisor to the Government of Mauritius. 5. It is argued, with much vehemence, on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent- landlord having concededly obtained an assignment which is functional during his post-retirement period, he has to necessarily wait for his retirement from the post-retirement assignment in order to be able to invoke the provisions of the Act. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed upon a Single Bench ruling of this Court in B.K. Sharma v. Col. Harminder Singh Gill (retired) 1994(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 255:1993(3) P.L.R. 282. 6. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed upon a Single Bench ruling of this Court in B.K. Sharma v. Col. Harminder Singh Gill (retired) 1994(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 255:1993(3) P.L.R. 282. 6. In an act of resistance, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that the retirement of the respondent-landlord from the post retirement assignment is of no significance and the provisions of Section 13- A of the Act would apply in relation to the date of retirement from public service i.e. 28/2/2009. Learned counsel, in support of that averment, relies upon a Single Bench ruling of this Court in S.S. Sodhi of Chandigarh v. Wing Commander Narender Pal Singh (Retd.) 1990 HRR 353. 7. The view advocated on behalf of the petitioner deserves negation. The reasons therefor are as under :- 8. In terms of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act would apply only to a specified landlord, an expression which has been defined under clause 2(hh) of the Act as under :- "specified landlord" means 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 port in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State." 9. A conjunctive perusal of above definitive provision and Section 13-A of the Act would leave no manner of doubt that the provisions aforementioned necessarily have exclusive relate-ability to the retirement of the specified landlord from "a public service". It would, of course, also be relate-able to the retirement of the landlord from a "post in connection with the affairs of the union or a State". By no stretch of interpretation can it be suggested that a post-retirement assignment, which too is contractual in character and terminable on a month notice, would be covered by the provisions afore mentioned. 10. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon B.K. Sharmas case (supra) is misconceived. There is no parallel of circumstances involved in that case and the present case. In that case, the specified landlord was an Army Officer who retired from service on 29.2.1990 but was re-employed on the same post for a period of three years with a break of one day. The officer had also been allowed to continue in occupation of the Government accommodation. In that case, the specified landlord was an Army Officer who retired from service on 29.2.1990 but was re-employed on the same post for a period of three years with a break of one day. The officer had also been allowed to continue in occupation of the Government accommodation. In that case, the officer had a fixed tenure of three years which is not so in the present case. In that view of things, the law laid down by this Court in B.K. Sharmas case (supra) would not apply. 11. The conspicuous, and legally very relevant and consequential, distinction between that case and the present case is that the appointment in the former case was for a fixed tenure of three years; while the appointment in latter case is on year to year basis and is terminable on a months notice. 12. It was, then, argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that respondent-landlord cannot be said to have acted bonafide in filing the ejectment action, in view of the conceded position that he had earlier purchased a residential house in Sector-18 which he sold off for a profit. 13. The plea raised deserves negation, particularly because it is oblivious of the categorical deposition on oath of the landlord that he sold it off as that house required reconstruction. Apart therefrom, it would also require pertinent notice that the house aforementioned came to be purchased before the respondent- landlord purchased the present accommodation. No mala fides in the context can be inferred. It is very natural for some one who is to retire to look for a house where the post-retirement period could be spent. It may be that a particular house for the purpose afore mentioned is purchased but is sold off as not being suitable. It would be quite natural and acceptable for the retiring landlord to purchase another house. Merely because the respondent- landlord happened to have purchased another house which he sold off subsequently would not suggest the want of bona fides on his part. 14. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner shall have two monthstime from today to vacate the premises aforementioned.