Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subedar Tara Singh vs Smt. Bachan Kaur And Ors. on 18 December, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1990)97PLR305
ORDER G.R. Majithia, J.
1. Subedar Tara Singh, landlord, has come up in revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, dated August 19, ,987, whereby his application under Section 13- A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) for eviction of the respondents from the demised premises was dismissed,
2. The facts:
The landlord pleaded that he was a specified landlord and the demised premises was leased out to one Gurdev Singh, son of Shankar Singh at the rate of Rs. 42/- per month. The tenant died and his legal heirs and successors were in occupation of the demised premises. He retired from Bengal Engineer Group Corps of Engineers, Roorki on February 2, 1960. He is not in possession of any other suitable accommodation in the municipal area of Jalandhar. One-half portion of House No. 298 R. Model Town, Jalandhar is in occupation of the respondents. The remaining portion having equal accomodation is lying un inhabited because it is not fit for human habitation and, even otherwise, it is not sufficient for his requirement
3. The respondents denied the material allegations made in the petition for eviction. It was denied that the petitioner-landlord was a specified landlord. It was also averred that the need of the landlord is not bona fide.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : -
1. Whether the applicant is a specified landlord as alleged? OPA 2 Whether this application has been filed by fulfilling the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act ? OPD
3. Whether the applicant needs the disputed premises for his personal use and occupation and whether he has got no other suit- able accommodation as alleged ? OPA
4. Relief.
5. Under issues Nos. 1 and 3, the learned Rent Controller found that the Certificate of Retirement filed along with the eviction application was signed by Shri J. P. Yadav, Lieut. Cap Assistant Records Officer for OIC Records and that there was no evidence that the was competent to remove the landlord from service Consequently, the Rent Cohtrollor held that the landlord was not a specified landlord.
6. Under issue No. 2, it was found that the landlord was in possession of sufficient accommodation and the same could meet his requirement.
7. I find no infirmity in the order of the learned Rent Controller. Section 13-Aread with Sections 18-A and 18-B of the Act makes a concession in favour of a public servant in service or retired as the case may be and his certain successors, to recover immediate possession of residential building, including a scheduled building, if be applies within one year prior to or after the date of his retirement or within one year from the commencement of Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985, if he needs such building for his own use and occupation and has not other suitable accommodation in the local area. A public servant or his successor is entitled to this concession only if he is a specified landlord within the meaning of clause (hh) of Section 2 of the Act and he has also to produce a certificate indicating date of his retirement from a competent authority to remove him from service. The Rent Controller did not rely upon the certificate of retirement on the ground that there was no material evidence on record to prove that the certificate was issued by the competent authority to remove the landlord from service. No material has been placed before me to take a contrary view. There is no other alternative but to confirm the finding of the Rent Controller that the petitioner failed to produce the requisite certificate from the competent authority indicating the date of his retirement from service. The Rent Controller, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the portion in possession of the landlord was sufficient to meet his requirements. The plea of the landlord that the portion in his possession was unsafe and unfit for human habitation was disbelieved by the Rent Controller are based on evidence and there is no justification to take a contrary view.
8. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.