Punjab-Haryana High Court
K.G.P. Pillai vs Subhash Chander Pathania on 31 July, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1990)98PLR514
JUDGMENT J.V. Gupta, C.J.
1. This revision petition has been referred to a larger Bench in view of the importance of the question involved therein.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the landlord-respondent sought the eviction of his tenant under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act), as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, as a specified landlord. The eviction is sought for one room on barsati, while the landlord is in possession of the entire ground floor. First floor, and the other room on the barsati is with other tenants. The landlord has not claimed their ejectment as a specified landlord. The tenant was not allowed leave to contest the eviction petition under subsection (5) of Section 18-A of the Act. The eviction order was passed against him. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that a specified landlord would be entitled to eject his tenant only if he can satisfy the Rent Controller that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area concerned in which he intends to reside While deciding this matter, the Rent Controller has to take into consideration the accommodation in possession of the landlord. In order to do so, unless leave to contest is granted to the tenant, the Rent Controller cannot consider this matter and in fact he did not consider, which caused manifest injustice to the tenant. According to the leaned Single Judge, the word 'suitable' in Section 13-A may assume importance for determination of the question on the facts of a given case. If Court comes to the conclusion that the entire ground floor is suitable for the landlord who has retired from service, the petition under Section 13-A of the Act will have to be dismissed, but this will be permissible only if leave to contest is granted to the tenant. Since this matter was of importance and was likely to arise in many cases, the case was referred to a larger Bench.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the said reference, the said learned Single Judge decided another revision petition in Ravinder Nath Khanna v. T.R. Lakhanpal, (1990-2) 98 P.L.R. 140, In which reliance was placed on a Supreme Court judgment and the leave to contest the ejectment application was granted to the tenant. The said Supreme Court decision reproduced in paragraph 4 of the judgment in Ravinder Nath Khanna's case (supra), reads as under :--
"Special leave granted. Having heard counsel for both the sides and also perused the material, we are of the opinion that this is a case where the Court below ought not 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 "
On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said Supreme Court judgment fully covers the matter and the tenant is entitled to the leave to contest the application.
4. In such a situation, when the landlord is already in occupation of certain accommodation in the urban area concerned, it will be a case of additional accommodation and the suitability of the same could be decided only if the tenant was allowed the leave to contest the ejectment application. However, special procedure for disposal of the application under Section 13A is provided under Section 18-A of the Act. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that the tenant on whom the service of summons has been declared to have been validly made under Sub-section (3) shall have no right to contest the prayer for eviction from the residential building unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as provided. Sub-section (5) further provides that the Kent Controller may give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the specified landlord from obtaing an order for the recovery and possession of the residential building under Section 13-A of the Act. Thus, it will be a question of fact in each case to be determined by the Rent Controller on the basis of the affidavit filed by the tenant disclosing the necessary facts as would disentitle the specified landlord from obtaining an order of ejectment under Section 13-A, As regards the facts of the present case, as observed earlier, they do disclose such facts which may disentitle the specified landlord to seek the ejectment of his tenant and, therefore, the leave to contest the ejectment application should have been granted in view of the above-said Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge himself subsequent to the present reference In the case in hand, the learned Rent Controller declined the leave to contest the ejectment application on the ground that under Section 13-A, the Court is not to go into the 'sufficiency' or 'sufficiency' of the accommodation available to the landlord. The question in the present case was not of 'insufficient' of insufficiency', but was of additional accommodation as the landlord is already in occupation of the entire ground floor of the building in question.
5. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the necessary leave to contest the ejectment application is granted. The parties have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on August 17, 1990 The Pent Controller will now proceed with the ejectment application in accordance with the provisions of Section 18-A of the Act so as to dispose of the same expeditiously.