Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bachan Lal vs Yogeshwar Lal Mehta on 7 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)144PLR865
JUDGMENT P.S. Patwalia, J.
1. The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 6.9.2002 made by the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur declining leave to the petitioner to defend the ejectment petition filed by the landlord under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Act').
2. The landlord-respondent who was to retire from the service of the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India at Chandigarh on 31.8.2002 tiled a petition for eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the demised shop which formed a part of the residential house where the landlord respondent wanted to settle after his retirement. It was contended in the petition that he wanted to reconstruct the house for use by him and members of his family after his retirement.
3. The tenant-petitioner onstested the said petition on the ground that he was in possession of a shop which was being used for commercial purpose as also that the respondent-landlord was not a specified landlord as the certificate filed by him showing his date of retirement was issued by a Deputy Director Subsidiary, Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India who was not the competent authority to remove the respondent-landlord from service and hence, the requirements of Section 13A of the Act were not satisfied by the respondent landlord.
4. The Rent Controller after considering the facts of the case declined permission to defend the ejectment petition to the tenant-petitioner. Hence, the present revision petition assailing the aforementioned order.
5. Learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner firstly contended that the certificate of retirement was not signed by an officer competent to remove the landlord-respondent from service and hence, the requirements of Section 13A of the Act were not satisfied. It is important to mention that the tenant-petitioner, however, did not dispute the fact that the landlord-respondent did not attain the age of superannuation on 31.8.2002. Still further the landlord-respondent had also filed an affidavit affirming that he was to retire on 31.8.2002 and wanted to settle permanently at Gurdaspur. I am of the opinion that once it is not disputed that the landlord-respondent was in fact retiring on 31.8.2002, the question whether the authority which issued the certificate was competent to remove him from service or not would to a great extent lose its significance. In this view of the matter. I am fortified by the observations made by a Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal v. Uttam Singh (2004-3) 138 P.L.R. 304 (P&H), which are to the following effect:
10. It is further pertinent to mention that certificate Ex. A-1 amply proves the fact that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.1996 and the petition had been (lied within one year of his retirement. Once the petitioner stood retired, the enquiry whether the certificate had been issued by an authority competent to remove the landlord-petitioner from service would lose its significance. The judgment of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh (supra) amply support this view. The employees of the Board are the employees holding an appointment in connection with the affairs of the State and would be covered by the expression 'specified landlord' as defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act. The aforementioned view also finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Fateh Chand Verma, 1987 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 385 (supra). Therefore, the Rent Controller has committed an error by discarding the certificate Ex. A-1 as insufficient evidence of the fact that the landlord-petitioner was a retired employee and a specified landlord.
Similar was the view taken by another Bench of this Court in (sic) The City Club, Pathankot (Regd.) Through its President v. Mohinder Sain Chopra (1990-2) 98 P.L.R. 142, which is to the following effect:
...As regards the certificate of retirement, it was admitted by the tenant himself in his affidavit that the landlord has retired as alleged by him. Once it is so admitted by the tenant himself that the landlord has retired as alleged then the question or proper certificate as such loses its significance. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with costs.
6. In this view of the matter once it is admitted by the tenant-petitioner that the landlord-respondent was in fact retiring on 31.8.2002, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the tenant-petitioner to disturb the findings recorded by the Rent Controller that the landlord-respondent satisfied the requirements of Section 13A of the Act and was also covered by the definition of 'specified landlord'.
7. To be fair to the tenant-petitioner, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Subedar Tara Singh v. Smt. Bachan Kaur and Ors. (1990-1) 97 P.L.R. 305, wherein the following observations were made:
... 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....
A reading of the observations would show that in that case the Rent Controller also did not rely on the certificate of retirement and this Court did not take a contrary view. However, in the present case, the Rent Controller has relied upon the certificate and also on the affidavit filed by the tenant-petitioner.
8. Harnam Singh and Ors. v. Dalip Singh and Ors. (1963) 65 P.L.R. 1133 (D.B.), Apart from the aforementioned judgment, counsel for the tenant-petitioner had relied upon a judgment of single Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1905 of 1996. decided on 20.5.1996. Therein the learned Judge had taken the view that since there was no evidence adduced to prove that the service, the said certificate had been issued by an officer competent to remove the respondent from the service, the said certificate could not be relied upon. However, the said judgment was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1997-2) 116 P.L.R. 662 (S.C.) : Civil Appeal No. 347 of 1997, decided on 24.1.1997 titled as Kashmir Singh Bhullar v. Punjab and Sind Bank. Therefore, the tenant-petitioner can draw no benefit from the aforesaid judgment.
9. Apart from this, learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner argued that the tenant-petitioner is tenant in the shop which is being used for commercial purposes and, therefore, the same is not a residential premises and is not a Scheduled building. However, learned, Rent Controller has found that the demised shop admittedly forms part of the residential house in which the landlord respondent intended to reside after his retirement. It has been found that the landlord-respondent wanted to reconstruct the house for use by him and other members of his family after his retirement after getting the same vacated from the tenant-petitioner. I, therefore, find no merit in this contention of learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner.
10. In view of what has been held above, the present revision petition is found devoid of any merit and is therefore, dismissed.