Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rulia Ram Sharma vs Shri Amar Pal Singh Bhalla And Anr. on 8 May, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1990)98PLR399
JUDGMENT
J.V. Gupta, Acting C.J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, dated January 23, 1987, whereby the ejectment application filed by the landlord Rulia Ram Sharma under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act), was dismissed.
2. Smt. Beant Chopra was the original landlady whereas Puran Singh was the original tenant under her, Puran Singh, tenant, died on March 13, 1983, leaving behind two married daughters, a son and a widow. Smt. Beant Chopra sold the entire house to Ravi Kant son of Rulia Ram Sharma on May 23, 1985. Later on, a suit was filed by Rulia Ram Sharma against his son Ravi Kant for declaration that he was the owner of half of the house, indispute. The said suit was decreed on March 10, 1986. Thus, Rulia Ram Sharma claimed himself to be the owner of the demised promises which were given on rent originally to Puran Singh. The said Rulia Ram Sharma retired on May 1, 1969 and he filed the present ejectment application claiming himself to be a "specified landlord" on March 18, 1986, i.e. within one year of the coming into force of the amended Act. The said application was contested on behalf of the respondents inter alia on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the married daughters of the deceased Puran Singh, who were necessary parties had not been impleaded as parties to the ejectment application. The Kent Controller, after allowing the permission to contest framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The learned Rent Controller found that the married daughters of the deceased tenant were necessary parties and, therefore, the ejectment application was bad for non-joinder of them. It was further held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Consequently the ejectment application was dismissed vide impugned order dated January 23, 1987.
3. It is no more disputed that Rulia Ram Sharma could not claim himself to be a "specified landlord" as he had retired from service on May 1, 1969, when he was not the owner of the demised premises. That being so, no application under Section 13-A of the Act, was maintainaule on his behalf.
4. Once it is so held that no application under Section 13-A of the Act, as such was maintainable it could not be disputed that the learned Rent Controller bad no jurisdiction to give any other finding in that application. In these circumstances, all the findings of the Rent Controller except the finding that Rulia Ram Sharma was not "specified landlord" are liable to be set aside and will not be takes into consideration in any subsequent proceedings between the parties.
5. Faced with this situation the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to amend the ejectment application as to be tried under Section 13 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, this will save his time as this application, itself is pending since 1986. No serious objection could be raised to this course being adopted on behalf of the respondent though it was argued that the petitioner may file a separate ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act. However, in order to avoid any further delay, the petitioner is allowed to amend his ejectment application and to convert the same under Section 13 of the Act. The amended application, if any may be filed before the Rent Controller. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds to the extent that the findings of the Rent Controller on all the issues are set aside except the finding that Rulia Ram Sharma was not a "specified landlord". The petition will now be tried under Section 13 of the Act in accordance with law expeditiously. The parties have been directed to appear in the Court of the Rent Controller on May 31, 1990.