Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sohan Lal vs Uttam Singh on 13 May, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)138PLR507, AIR 2005 (NOC) 143 (P&H), 2004 A I H C 4363, (2004) 3 PUN LR 507, (2004) 2 RENCR 208, (2004) 2 RENTLR 664, 2004 HRR 2 398, (2004) 2 RENCJ 332
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under section 18-A (8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') prays for quashing order dated 15.3.2002 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar. The Rent Controller has dismissed the petition filed by the landlord-petitioner under Section 13-A of the Act being a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2(hh). The landlord-petitioner has filed the ejectment petition on 17.9.1997 claiming that he was a specified landlord being a retiree from, the Punjab State Electricity Board (for brevity 'the Board'). It was asserted that he had retired on 31.12.1996. It was further pleaded that he did not own and possess any suitable accommodation for the residential purpose within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar and he intended to reside at 86-B, Guru Nagar, Jalandhar. The demised premises has been on rent with the tenant-respondent. The landlord-petitioner prayed for his eviction on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. It was further asserted that there is one room and one kitchen in house No. 86-B, Guru Nagar, Jalandhar, which is on rent with another tenant namely Gurnam Singh. The family of the landlord-petitioner comprises of his wife and two sons. One of his son is B.B.M.S. and the other one had qualified Pharmacist course. The tenant-respondent contested the petition by raising the objection that the landlord-petitioner has failed to com-ply with the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act. It was alleged that in fact he wanted to increase the rent and the ground of bonafide necessity has been devised later on. It was further alleged that the landlord-petitioner did not disclose the reason of his shifting to Jalandhar nor he disclosed the business of his sons. The relationship of landlord and tenant was, however, admitted. The tenant-respondent has also alleged that the landlord-petitioner owns another property namely 86-E, Guru Nagar, Jalandhar and he has failed to disclose the same before the Rent Controller. Claiming that the landlord-petitioner has sufficient accommodation for him and his family, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. The Rent Controller found that the landlord-petitioner did not require the demised premises for his bonafide personal necessity and recorded the following findings:-
"From the arguments of both sides, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to mention the purpose for which he requires the premises in dispute. Petitioner has also failed to disclose whether he wants to start his business in the disputed premises. Moreover, he has failed to rebut the contention of the respondent that he is not having accommodation in village Mandali. So where the landlord was in possession and owner of suitable accommodation is not entitled to ejectment of the respondent from the disputed property. Therefore, provisions of Section 13-A could only be invoked if landlord was not in possession nor owner of the suitable accommodation. I take support from 1990(2) Rent Control Reporter 60, "wherein it is held that landlord was in possession and owner of suitable accommodation and not entitled to eject the respondent/tenant." Hence, this issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.
2. The other ground for dismissal of the ejectment petition is that the landlord-petitioner has failed to prove his status as a specified landlord. The retirement certificate Ex.A-1 has not been accepted as sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirement of Section 13-A read with Section 2(hh) of the Act. It has also been held that the landlord-petitioner had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13-A of the Act in as much as no affidavit in support of the petition was filed.
3. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner has argued that the Rent Controller has committed grave error in law by rejecting his retirement certificate Ex.A-1 by holding that the same was not issued by an authority competent to remove him from service. The learned counsel has also argued that the ejectment petition filed before the Rent Controller was duly verified and after the grant of leave to contest to the tenant-respondent, it has become more or less an ordinary petition of ejectment against a tenant on a judgment of this Court in Fateh Chand Verma v. Balbir Singh,1 (1987-1)91 P.L.R. 414 and argued that employees of the Board or the Corporation are covered by the expression specified landlord as they hold appointment in connection with the affairs of the State. He has also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh v. Beant Singh,2 (1990-1)97 P.L.R. 238 and argued that the basic objection of attaching the certificate of retirement is only to see whether the averments made in the petition showing that the landlord is likely to retire within one year of the filing of the petition or not. In a case where the landlord had already retired such an enquiry looses its significance.
4. Another submission made by the learned counsel is that the Rent Controller could not have taken into consideration the accommodation situated at village Mandali because that accommodation did not fall within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar and the same would not constitute a suitable accommodation within the meaning of expression local area as used in Section 13-A and, therefore, the findings that the landlord-petitioner is in possession of sufficient accommodation could not be sustained.
5. Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, learned counsel for the tenant-respondent has not been able to advance any meaningful argument to support the order of the Rent Controller.
6. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed. The basic object of incorporation Section 13-A in the Act was to give some solace to the retired employees so that they may have the pleasure of living in their own house in the evenings of their lives. The constitutional validity of such like provisions had already been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhattal v. Rakesh Kumar Jain,3 (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 316 (S.C.).
7. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the instant petition, it would be appropriate to make a reference to Section 2(hh) and Section 13-A of the Act, which reads as under:-
"2(hh) - '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."
13-A Right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to accrue to certain persons - Where a specified landlord at any time, within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, whichever is later applies to the Controller along with a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he 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 or scheduled building, as the case may be, for his own occupation, there shall accrue on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether expressed or implied), custom or usage to the contrary a right to recover immediately the possession of such residential building or scheduled building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts:
Provided that in case of death of the specified landlord, the widow or widower of such specified landlord and in the case of death of such widow or widower, a child or a grand child or a widowed daughter-in-law who was dependent upon such specified landlord at the time of his death shall be entitled to make an application under this Section to the Controller:-
(a) in the case of death of such specified landlord before the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985,within one year of such commencement;
(b) in the case of death of such specified landlord, after such commencement, but before the date of his retirement, within one year of the date of his death;
(c) in the case of death of such specified landlord, after such commencement and the date of his retirement with one year of the date of such retirement;
and on the date of such application the right to recover the possession of the residential building or scheduled building, as the case may be which belonged to such specified landlord at the time of his death shall accrue to the applicant;
Provided further that noting in this section shall be so construed as conferring a right, on any person to recover possession of more than one residential or scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in part or parts;
Provided further that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable period for putting the specified landlord or as the case may be the widow, widower, child, grand child or widowed daughter-in-law in possession of the residential building or scheduled building as the case may be and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate."
Explanation.- For the purposes of this Section, the expression "retirement" means termination of service of a specified landlord otherwise than by resignation.
8. A perusal of the aforementioned provisions would show that a specified landlord within one year after the date of his retirement could apply to the Controller along with a certificate from the authority indicating the date of his retirement. An affidavit is also required to be filed to the effect that he did not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area where he intends to reside. These provisions have been given an over riding effect as the use of expression notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere shows. The Act provides for a summary method for ejectment of the tenant.
9. The first question which requires determination in the instant case is as to whether the landlord-petitioner owns any suitable accommodation at Jalandhar. According to the averments made in the petition, he had categorically stated that he has no house at Jalandhar which is the local area where he intends to reside. He has further stated that he required the accommodation for himself and his family. The tenant-respondent has made false averments in para 2 of his application for leave to contest that landlord-petitioner owned another house namely 86-E, Guru Nagar, Jalandhar. In his reply landlord- petitioner has categorically denied those averments which has been supported by an affidavit. The accommodation situated at Village Mandali firstly is not with in the limits of the local area of the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. Moreover, the landlord-petitioner has candidly stated that he is residing in Village Mandali in a two and half marla house, which belonged to all of his brothers. He has further stated that he want to reside in this house with his family and has sought ejectment of another tenant as well, which is pending. It becomes evident that the landlord-petitioner does not own any suitable accommodation for his occupation in the local limits of the urban area. Moreover, there is no requirement of Section 13-A for the landlord-petitioner to state the nature of business of his sons. Therefore, the findings of the Rent Controller deserved to be set aside.
10. It is further pertinent to mention, that certificate Ex.A-1 amply proves the fact that the petition had been filed 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 (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 retied employee and a specified landlord.
11. The above discussion shows that the landlord-petitioner was a retired employee at the time of filing the ejectment petition and the same has been filed within one year of his retirement. It further proves that he did not have suitable accommodation within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar which is the local urban area. In any case, the accommodation available at Village Mandali was a small house, which appears to be the property owned by him as a co-owner along with his brothers. It has also been shown that the landlord-petitioner intended to occupy the demised premises for his own use and occupation. Therefore, the requirements contemplated by Section 13-A of the Act have been fully satisfied.
12. The Rent Controller has rejected the ejectment petition on another ground that it was not supported by an affidavit. Firstly, the ejectment petition has been duly verified as required by Order 6 Rule 15, which would be almost equivalent to filing of an affidavit. The importance of verification has been emphasised by the Supreme Court in para 11 of its judgment in the case of A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India,4 A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 652. Moreover, in the instant case, leave to defend was granted and the objections with regard to filing of an affidavit was an extreme technicality. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case absence of an affidavit in support of the ejectment petition cannot constitute a basis for dismissing the ejectment petition.
13. For the reasons recorded above, this petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of Rs. 10,000/-.