Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mr. Ravinder Nath Khanna vs Sh. T.R. Lakhanpal, Deputy Secretary ... on 3 May, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1990)98PLR140
JUDGMENT Gokal Chand Mital, J.
1. During the pendency of the proceedings, the specified landlord has been able to get the first floor of the house vacated from the tenant under the consent order on 3-8-1988. The specified landlord is also in possession of a room on the ground floor besides a room on the second floor. The tenant is in possession of a room on the second floor and his ejectment is also sought on the ground that the landlord is a specified landlord.
2. The trial Court ordered ejectment of the tenant without giving leave to contest, against which order this revision has beep filed.
3. The argument on behalf of the tenant is that since the landlord was occupying two rooms one on the ground floor and one on the second floor, at the time of eviction application and got possession of the first floor during the pendency of the proceedings, he cannot be allowed to seek eviction of the tenant much less without affording leave to contest and to show that the accommodation in his possession is sufficient. It is also the argument of the learned counsel for the tenant that a specified landlord is entitled to move only one application for ejectment and not two and since one application for ejectment has already succeeded on the basis of consent, this application is not tenable.
4. The first argument is supported by a Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1990, arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 236 of 1990, Dr. S. M. Nehra v. D.D. Malik, Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1990 dated 11-1-1990. The order of the Supreme Court is as follows:-
"Special leave granted. Having heard counsel for both the sides and also perused the material, wee are of the opinion that this is a case where the Court below ought to have refused leave to contest. The landlord is occupying the ground-floor besides the entire second floor. The tenant is occupying the first floor. The question is whether the landlord requires the first floor also. This question, in our opinion, could be properly determined only by granting leave to the tenant to contest. There is no need to take a summary procedure since it is a case of additional accommodation.
5. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders and grant the tenant leave to contest the proceedings. The Controller shall now proceed according to law. Parties shall appear before the Controller on 12-2-90 to receive farther direction. It is needless to state that all the other points are left open."
6. A reading of this clearly shows that if the tenant is in possession of one floor, for proper determination, the leave to contest has to be granted to the tenant.
7. As regards the second argument, the same is covered in favour of the tenant in view of Sohan Lal v. Prem Singh Grewal, (1989-2) 97 P.L.R. 139.
8. Since leave to contest was not granted to the tenant this revision petition is allowed, the order of the Rent Controller is set aside and leave is granted to the tenant to contest the proceedings. The matter is remitted to the Rent Controller who will now proceed further in accordance with law.
9. The parties through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 22-5-1990.