Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lt. Col. Sh. Baldev Singh Bhalla vs Prem Sagar And Anr. on 6 September, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1991)99PLR289
JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The challenge in revision here is to the leave granted to the tenant to contest the petition of the landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. On July 25, 1988, the petitioner Lt. Col. Baldev Singh Bhalla, filed a petition for ejectment against his tenant Prem Sagar under Section 13 A of the Act, on the plea that he retired from service on August 31, 1987 and was a "specified landlord" in terms of the meaning of this expression under the Act and that he required the demised premises bona fide for his own use and occupation.
3. The tenant-Prem Sagar sought leave to contest the petition for ejectment filed against him on the ground that the petitioner was not a specific landlord. He sought to question, in this behalf, his date of retire neat by suggesting that he had in fact retired on August 31, 1985. The reference here being made to the statement made by the petitioner's father Dr. Raghbir Singh Bhalla in ejectment proceedings against his tenant that his son-Lt Col. Baldev Singh Bhalla, was to retire from service on August 31, 1985. The plea thus being the present petition was barred by time.
4. The next point raised was that the petitioner owned another house, namely; L-160, Model Town, Ludhiana and he was thus not entitled to seek the ejectment of the tenant from the dismissed premises. The reference in this behalf being to the House Tax Assessment list pertaining to the years 1983-84 to 1986-87 where the petitioner is shown to be recorded as owner of this house 5 Finally, it was averred that the petitioner bad converted the demised premises to commercial use It being mentioned in this behalf that both the petitioner and his late father-Raghbir Singh Bhalla, after converting some portion of the building into shops, bad let them out to various firms
6. In seeking leave to contest, the tenant must show prima facei some plausibility in the defences set up by him In the present case, it wilt be seen that there is on record the certificate from the Military Secratary's Branch of Army Headquarters, New Delhi that the petitioner Lt. Col. Baldev Sing Bhalla had retired from the Army on superannuation with effect from August 33, 1987. The rent controller has chosen not be accept this certificate for the reason that it is signed by an officer lower in rank than the petitioner On the face of it, this is clearly no ground to cast any doubt upon the genuineness or validity of this certificate. As is well-known junior officers posted in the relevant branch are authorised to sign such certificates on behalf of Military Secretary. As doubt had been expressed on this account, to lend further assurance to this certificate, the petitioner has also placed on record, the certificate of Col. S. K. Kaushal of October 23, 1989 (annexure P/3) to the effect that Major R. L. Singh who had certified the date of retirement of the petitioner, was fully empowered to issue the retirement orders and the certificate as issued to Lt Col Baldev Singh Bhalla on March 5, 1988. Next there is the certificate anaexure P/4 of October 20, 1989 issued by Lt. General S. K. Pillai again to the effect that Lt. Col Baldev Singh Bhalla had retired from the Army on superannuation with effect from August 31, 1987. With such being the material on record, no occasion is provided to suggest even prima facie that the present petition was barred by time,
7. Turning next to the plea that the petitioner also owned another house in Punjab namely; L-160, Model Town, Ludhiana, here again. there is on record the decree in favour of his brother Harjit Singh of October 12, 1988, wherely the house L-160, Model Town has been held to be that of Harjit Singh. Further, even according to the will of the father of the petitioner, this house has been bequeathed to Harjit Singh In the face of this material, it cannot be suggested that the owner of house L-160, Model Town was the petitioner. It stands established, on the other hand, that the ownership of this house vested in his brother Hajit Singh.
8. Finally, there was the plea that the building had been converted to commercial use. This is indeed an untenable contention, when regard is had to the fact that the demised premises were Set out to the tenant for residential purposes and they continue to be used by him as such. It may be clarified that these demised premises area part of a bigger building The fact that some portion of it may have been coverted to commercial use, cannot be taken to imply that the demised premises too now answer to this description.
9. It will be seen, therefore, that on the face of it, the defences sought to be set up by the tenant cannot stand scrutiny and patently lack plausibility. This being so, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the rent controller fell in error in granting leave to the tenant to contest the petition filed by Lt. Col. Baldev Singh Bhalla. The leave to defend granted to the tenant is accordingly hereby set aside and this revision petition is accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300/-.