Punjab-Haryana High Court
S.S. Sodhi vs Wing Commander Narinder Singh on 11 April, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1990)98PLR260
JUDGMENT
J.V. Gupta, Acting C.J.
1. This revision petttion on behalf of the tenant is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated October 7, 1989, whereby ejectment order has been passed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act)
2. The landlord Shri Narender Pal Singh retired as a Wing Commander on October 31, 1984, vide retirement order. Exhibit P.3. The disputed house was built by him in the year 1975 In March, 1983, he let out the ground floor of the disputed house to Shri S.S. Sodhi, the tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000-. After his retirement, the landlord intended to settle at Chandigarh and requested the tenant to vacate the premises. Meanwhile, the landlord bad shifted temporarily to house No. 156 in Sector 8-A, Chandigarh. The landlord claimed himself to be a specified landlord as defined under Section 2(hh) of the Act and filed the ejectment application under section 13-A, of the Act, dated January 17, 1987. It was pleaded therein that he did not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intended to shift after his retirement. The tenant appeared and applied for leave to contest the said application which was allowed vide order dated September 26, 1988 In the written statement fifed by the tenant he admitted himself to be a tenant under the landlord on the ground floor of the disputed house on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and the petitioner having retired from the Indian Air Force, but contested the same on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord According to the tenant, the landlord was not a specified landlord as defined under the Act, as he had sought re-employment after having retired from the Indian Air Force as the Security Officer with the Zonal Office of the Punjab National Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh and that he had been provided with official accommodation by the Bank in House No. 156, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh which was more than sufficient for his family consisting of the landlord, his wife, his son and his daughter. It was also alleged that the present petition had been filed with oblique motive to pressurise the tenant to increase the rent The learned Rent Controller, after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, came to the conclusion that it had been amply proved on the record that the landlord was a specified landlord as defined under the Act. A copy of the Gazette Notification was also brought on the record, showing the petitioner as one of the retired officers of the Indian Air Force. As regards the factum of re-employment, the learned Rent Controller found that even if the landlord had been provided with residential accommodation by his employer Bank, it would not be a bar to him to seek eviction of the tenant from the demised premises if be wanted to settle at Chandigarh in the disputed house owned by him. According to the Rent Controller it was for the landlord to choose as to where he intends to settle after his retirement. Since it has been proved on the record that the landlord does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Chandigarh and he wanted to settle in the disputed house, he was entitled to eject his tenant under Section 13-A of the Act. Consequently, the ejectment order was passed on October 7, 1989.
3. The learned counsel for the tenanat petitioner submitted that the respondent was not a specified landlord as defined under the Act since be had been re-employed. According to the learned counsel, he will be entitled to eject his tenant under Section 13-A after his retirement from the subsequent employment in the Bank because official accommodation has been provided by the Bank to the landlord. He further submitted that since the original certificate of retirement was not produced on the record, there was no proof that the petitioner had retired, as alleged, from the Indian Air Force. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Sohan Lal v. Col. Prem Singh Grewal, (1989-2) 96 P.L.R. 139. It was also contended that the service of the Punjab National Bank: where the landlord had bee a re-employed will be deemed to be the service in connection with the affairs of the State as held by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 994 of 1989, decided on August 28, 1989.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent' landlord submitted that the landlord was a specified landlord as defined under the Act. Re-employment after his retirement from the Air Force was no bar to seek eviction under section 13-A of the Act. Moreover, in case the landlord failed to occupy the premises after the ejectment of his tenant, ample safeguards have been provided under section 19(2-A) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the accommodation provided by the Bank cannot be said to be owned and possessed by the landlord as contemplated under section 13-A of the Act and, taerefore, it was of no consequence, in support of the contention, the leaned counsel railed upon Parminder Singh v. Budh Singh, 1990 (1) Rent L.R. 75. It was also pointed out that the tenant while appearing in the witness-box as R.W. 1 admitted that he had a house in Panchkula which was one kanal and had been rented out to one Shri Sahini at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,100/-, whereas he was only paying Rs. 1,000/- per month as rent for the demised premises and thus wants to take undue benefit of his tenancy.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the case law cited at the bar. Specified landlord has been defined under section 2(hh) as follows :--
" '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 post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State."
Admittedly, the landlord retired from the Indian Air Force on October 31, 1984 vide certificate, copy, Exhibit P. 3. The objection raised against the issuance of the certificate, Exhibit P. 3, having been issued by an officer below the rank of an authority competent to remove the petitioner does not sound convincing in view of the admitted facts that the petitioner had retired from the Indian Air Force on the date, as alleged by him. The tenant neither in his written statement nor in his evidence has denied this fact. Thus it becomes immaterial that such a certificate has been issued by an authority not competent to remove him. Apart from that, the landlord also brought on the record a copy of the Gazette notification dated April 18, 1987, showing him as one of the retired officers of the Indian Air Force. The ejectment application under section 13-A of the Act, was filed on January 20, 1987, i.e., within one year of the date of the commencement of the Act, as made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh on December 29, 1986. Section 13-A of the Act provides that in case the said specified landlord does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside, to recover possession of his residential building, he has the right to recover possession of such a residential building. It is no more disputed that the landlord does not own and possess any other residential building in the urban area concerned. The accommodation provided by the Bank where the landlord has been re-employed after his retirement from the Indian Air Force was of no consequence as that could not be said to be "owned" by him. As observed earlier, under section 13-A of the Act, in order to disentitle the landlord to seek eviction thereunder, he should not "own and possess" any other suitable accommodation. Admittedly, the accommodation provided by the Bank is not owned by the landlord and, therefore, his case squarely falls within the provisions of section 13-A of the Act, as to recover immediate possession of the demised premises. Not only that in case the landlord fails to occupy the premises, after the eviction of his tenant under section 13-A of the Act, ample safeguards have been provided under section 19(2A) of the Act, wherein it has been provided that if the landlord does not occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of three months from the date of such eviction or lets out the whole or any part of such building from which the tanant was evicted to any person other than the tenant, in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (4-A) of section 13, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or both. The tenant cannot dictate to the landlord that he may be evicted only when the landlord ceases to be in the service of the Punjab National Bank If during his employment with the Punjab National Bank after his retirement from the Indian Air Force he wants to settle in his own house, there cannot be any valid objection to the same on the part of the tenant. Moreover in the present case, the tenant admits that he owns a house at Panchkula which he has rented out at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,100/- whereas he is only paying Rs. 1,000/- per month for the demised premises. Thus, he cannot be said to be a tenant who requires protection under the Act. In any case, one of the purpose of the amending Act of 1985 was that a specified landlord who fulfills the requirements of section 13-A, should be entitled to recover immediate possession from his tenant of a residential building which is owned by him as under section 13-A of the Act, the landlord has to file an affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area concerned.
6. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any merit in this petition. Consequently, the same fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed two months' time to vacate the premises, provided an undertaking is filed within a fortnight with the Rent Controller that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord. Arrears of rent, if any, will also be deposited with the said undertaking and future rent will be paid in advance by the tenth of every month.