Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.;— The question involved in this revision is that “if the landlord has retired as the employee of the UT, Chandigarh and has property in the State of Haryana in occupation of a tenant, could he get it vacated in terms of Section 13-A(1-A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 being a Central Government employee?” This revision petition is filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller, Panchkula dated 16.11.2011 by which application of the tenant seeking leave to defend was dismissed on the ground of delay. In brief, the landlords filed eviction petition under Section 13-A(1-A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) alleging therein that they had let out their triple storey house No.1018, Sector 9, Panchkula vide lease deed dated 31.10.2003 @ `15,000/- per month. The landlord/respondent No.1 has retired as Deputy Director, Ayurveda, Chandigarh Administration by taking voluntary retirement on 31.1.2009, landlady/respondent No.2 has retired as Sr. Ayurdedic Physician on 31.8.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation and both are in need of the demised premises for their residence and opening a clinic as they have no other accommodation in the urban area of Panchkula. The tenants filed application for leave to defend which was allowed on 14.5.2010. They filed written statement, issues were accordingly framed on 11.6.2010 and the case was posted for evidence of the landlords. However, the landlords filed a Civil Revision in the High Court against the order dated 14.5.2010 whereby leave to defend was granted and the said CR No.4148 of 2010 was allowed on 13.10.2011 on the ground that leave to defend was filed beyond the statutory period of 15 days. After the order dated 14.5.2010 was set aside by the High Court, Rent Controller passed the order of eviction. In the present revision petition, the only argument raised by the tenants is that the landlords have retired from Chandigarh Administration and are thus not covered under Section 13-A(1-A) of the Act as it applies to the employees of the Government of India, Government of Haryana or Government of State owned Board or Corporation of Haryana and not the retirees from UT Chandigarh. In this regard, he has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of “Chandigarh Administration and Anr. Vs. In this regard, he has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of “Chandigarh Administration and Anr. Vs. Surinder Kumar and ors.” 2004(1) SCC 530 and “Government of NCT Delhi Vs. All India Central Civil Accounts, JAO’s” 2002(1) SCC 344 . In reply, learned counsel for the landlords has argued that the employees of UT, Chandigarh are the employees of Government of India and as such the landlords are entitled to take the benefit of Section 13-A(1-A) of the Act. He has further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the tenants are in respect of service disputes and has referred to a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of “S.C. Chawla Vs. Harbans Lal Khullar” 1993(2) RCR (Rent) 127. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. Admittedly, the landlords were in the service of U.T, Chandigarh. They have the demised premises in the City of Panchkula in Haryana and have filed the petition under Section 13-A(1-A) of the Act for seeking eviction of the tenant under the summary procedure in which the tenant is required to seek leave to defend within 15 days of service of notice to appear and in case the tenant fails to seek leave to defend then the statement made by the landlords in the application for eviction is deemed to be admitted by the tenants and as such they become liable to be evicted from the demised premises. In case the landlords are not competent to invoke the provisions of Section 13-A(1-A) of the Act then they have to file a petition under Section 13 of the Act in which the tenant would not have to ask for leave to defend as the summary procedure would not be applicable. Section 13-A(1-A) of the Act was inserted by Haryana Act No.10 of 1990 to provide immediate respite to the retiree employees to recover possession of their residential/non-residential premises, if they are the employees of the Government of India or Government of Haryana or Government of State owned Board or Corporation. The argument of learned counsel for the tenants that the landlords being the employees of UT, Chandigarh are not covered under Section 13-A(1-A) of the Act is not acceptable and the decisions of the Supreme Court which have been relied upon are not applicable. The argument of learned counsel for the tenants that the landlords being the employees of UT, Chandigarh are not covered under Section 13-A(1-A) of the Act is not acceptable and the decisions of the Supreme Court which have been relied upon are not applicable. In the case of the Chandigarh Administration and another (Supra) the facts were that Chandigarh Administration had issued a notification for inviting applications for 14 posts of ASI in Chandigarh Police. Two posts were meant for Scheduled Caste (SC) and 4 posts for Other Backward Class (OBC), the respondents had their caste certificates issued by their respective States i.e. Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. On the basis of those caste certificates they had sought the benefit of reservation which was denied which led to filing of a petition before the Central Administration Tribunal at Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’), who vide its order dated 23.2.2000 allowed the O.A. and directed the Chandigarh Administration to give appointments to them if they were found to be otherwise eligible. The writ petition of the Chandigarh Administration against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. In the said case it was admitted by the Administration that they have been following the instructions issued by the Government of India for the purpose of recruitment as not being the condition of service. The Government of India had issued circular dated 22.2.1985 in which it was clarified to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories to the effect that SC/ST persons who have migrated from the States of origin to other States for the purpose of seeking education/employment etc. will be deemed to be Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes of the State of their origin and will not be entitled to derive benefits on that basis from the State of their migration. The prescribed authority of a state Government/Union Territory administration may issue the SC/STs certificate to a person who has migrated from another State on the production of genuine certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of the father’s origin. Thereafter, there was another circular/clarification dated 26.8.1986 in which it was clarified that there is no discrimination between Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of one State or another. Thereafter, there was another circular/clarification dated 26.8.1986 in which it was clarified that there is no discrimination between Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of one State or another. In respect of employment under the Union Territories also legally, the position would be the same. In view thereof, it was held by the Supreme Court that the Chandigarh Administration cannot overlook the instructions contained in the Government of India Circular 26.8.1986 especially when those instructions were being admittedly all along followed by the Chandigarh Administration. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. Thus, in this case, there was no such issue as to whether an employee of the Chandigarh Administration would not be an employee of the Government of India. Similarly, the other case of the Government of NCT Delhi (Supra) is also pertaining to service dispute. However, in the case of S.C. Chawla (Supra) a Railway employee, after retirement from service, filed a petition for eviction under Section 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The question then arose as to whether the Railway employee come within the category of employees of Government of India. It was found by the Court that Central Government employee is not defined in the Act hence the said definition was taken from the General Clauses Act, 1897 in which it is defined as “in relation to the administration of a Union Territory, the administrator thereof acting within the scope of the authority given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution”. The Court had found that the department of Railways is an extended arm of the Government of India and as such the petitioner in the said case was found to be Central Government employee. The Act is also silent about the definition of the employees of Government of India, therefore, in order to search the definition of Central Government employees, the assistance is to be taken from the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the provisions of Section 8(b)(iii) which has been reproduced hereinabove according to which the Administration of the UT is administered by the President of India in terms of Article 239 of the Constitution and hence, the employees of the UT, Chandigarh are the employees of the Government of India for the purpose of filing the eviction petition. The Revision petition is thus found to be meritless and is dismissed.