Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. Surinder Singh son of Jawala Singh resident of Chandigarh had filed a petition under Section 13-A of the: Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for the eviction of Gurbir Kaur wife and Rajbir Singh son of Mahabir Singh Sidhu, tenants from house No. 96, Phase 3B1, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Tehsil Mohali, District Ropar. The Rent Controller, Kharar, vide its judgment dated May 22, 1996 allowed the petition by holding that the petitioner has proved himself to be a specified landlord and issued directions that the petitioner be put in possession thereof. The tenants are aggrieved against the judgment of learned Rent Controller and have filed the present Revision Petition for the setting aside of the judgment of learned Rent Controller.
2. The judgment of the Rent Controller has been assailed on the ground that the landlord had retired as Superintendent Grade-I Economic and Statistic Organisation, Punjab, Chandigarh on 30.4.1992 whereas the petition under Section 13-A of the Act has been filed on 20.1.1996 i.e. after lapse of about years of his retirement. In case the landlord required the property for his self use, he should have filed the case under General Law by service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
3. The learned counsel for the tenants has urged that the landlord could file a civil suit under General Law terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The other plea raised is that the landlord had enhanced rent and as such fresh tenancy was created. Since the landlord had retired on 30.4.1992 and had created a fresh tenancy in December 1993, he had lost the remedy to approach the Rent Controller under Section 13-A of the Act. The counsel has further argued that the Rent Controller failed to deal with the basic question that once the tenant makes out an arguable case, leave to defend should normally be granted. In order to fortify his arguments, the counsel has relied upon 'Precisions Steel & Engineering Works and Anr. v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 1518, Dr. D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh, (1988-1)93 P.L.R. 394 (S.C.) and Santosh Kumari Passi v. Smt. Kamla Wati, (1987-2)92 P.L.R. 367.
4. Mr. Arun Jain, while rebutting the arguments of counsel for the tenants has argued that the Punjab Government had issued notification dated 9.2.1984 whereby the provisions of the Act were made applicable to the Urban Area of Mohali with effect from 1.4.1995. Earlier, Urban Area administered by the Notified Area Committee of Mohali was exempt from the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 from 28.12.1983 till 31.3.1995. Under Section 13-A of the Act, a specified landlord can apply within one year after the date of retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the Act whichever is later. The counsel contends that the petition filed by the landlord on 20.1.1996 is within one year of the date of commencement of the Act. The counsel further contends that these are summary proceedings and Section 13-A has been enacted for the benefit of the retiring employee. The counsel further argued that mere increase in the rent does not create any fresh tenancy as the fresh tenancy can be created by bilateral agreement. Lastly, Mr. Jain has argued that this Court in revisional jurisdiction is to interfere if there is patently illegality or irregularity in the judgment which has not been pointed out by the counsel for the tenants. In support of his arguments, the counsel has cited 'Surjit Singh Arora v. Harbans Singh, (1989-1)95 P.L.R. 6 and Dr. S.M. Nehra v. D.D. Malik, (1990-1)97 P.L.R. 486.
5. I have gone through the entire law cited by the counsel for the parties and perused the relevant provisions of the Act.
6. The first authority 'Precision Steel and Engineering Works (Supra) cited by the counsel for the tenants has no applicability to the facts of the present case as the said authority is under Delhi Rent Control Act and the words used in the Act, are 'The Controller shall grant leave' whereas under Section 18-A of the Punjab Act, the words used are 'The Controller may give to the tenant leave to contest the application'. In Dr. D.N. Malhotra's case (supra), it was held that 'Land lord retired from service in 1965 and let the premises in 1968. Landlord cannot be considered as specified landlord under Section 2(hh) and not entitled to benefit of summary trial under Section 13A. Landlord must be a specified landlord on date of retirement.'. The facts of the case in hand arc quite different. In the instant ease, the premises were let out to Mahabir Singh Sidhu, original landlord in the year 1986 whereas the petitioner retired on 30.4.1992 which clearly proves that the premises were already let out before the retirement of petitioner-landlord whereas in Dr. D.N. Malhotra's case (supra) landlord retired from the service in 1965 and let out the premises in 1968. In those circumstances, it was held that the landlord was not a specified landlord under Section 2(hh) and was not entitled to the benefit of summary trial under Section 13A of the Act as the landlord must be a specified landlord on the dale of retirement. Therefore, the facts of said case are distinguishable from the facts of this case. In Santosh Kumari Passi's case (supra), it was held as under:-
'East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Section 13(2) (i) Payment of rent in advance. Fresh tenancy. Premises let at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. Rent payable in advance according to rent note. Subsequently, tenant agreed to vacate the premises within a year and to increase the rent to Rs. 400/- P.M. in case of non-vacation. Tenant not vacating and paying increased rent of Rs. 400/- P.M. Held, it created fresh tenancy. Tenant not liable to pay rent in advance. Pleas of short deposit turned down,'
7. The observations in the above authority do not help the tenants much. In the. case in hand, rent was being increased periodically. Initially the rent was Rs. 1,250/-; per month but in December 1993, it was increased to Rs. 2,300/-. Mere increase in! the rent does not create any fresh tenancy as fresh tenancy can be created by bilateral agreement. As per facts of authority reported in Santosh Kumari Passi's case (supra), fresh tenancy had been created by the tenant by giving undertaking dated 20.6.1976 agreeing to vacate the demised premises on or before June 30, 1977 besides agreeing to pay rent at increased rate.
8. This Court in Dr. S.M. Nehra's case (supra), held as under;-
'East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-A Specified Landlord-Retirement from service on 31.12.1978. Rent of the demised premises raised from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 520/- per month in April 1979. Creation of fresh tenancy. Marginal increase in rent not to lead to creation of fresh tenancy Landlord entitled to claim the benefit being a specified landlord under the amended Act'.
9. Now coming to the argument of counsel for the tenants that the landlord can file a civil suit under General Law by terminating tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is of no consequence as remedy under Section 13-A of the Act is a summary remedy and is enacted for the benefit of the retiring Government servant, proceedings under Section 13A of the Act have been held to be summary in nature in various decisions.
10. In Surjit Singh Arora's case (supra) it was held that revision under Section 13-A cannot be regarded as a first appeal nor can it be as restricted as the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Merely disputing the claim made by the landlord would not be sufficient to enable the tenant to the grant of relief i.e. leave to defend.
11. In this case, the landlord had retired on 30.4.1992. The Urban area administered by the Notified Area Committee of S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) was excempt from provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 from 28.12.1983 till 31.3.1995. The provisions of the Act became applicable to the Urban area of S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) with effect from 1.4.1995. The petitioner filed the petition on 20.1.1996 i.e. within one year of the date of commencement of the Act and no fault can be found with it on that score. It is specifically provided in Section 13-A that 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, has 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. The argument of learned counsel for the tenants is repelled in view of specific provisions of Section 13-A of the Act as the landlord had filed the petition within one year of the date of the commencement of the Act to the Urban Area of S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali). The landlord being a specified land lord has rightly invoked the provisions of the Act.
12. Under Section 18(4) of the Act, 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 or Scheduled building, as the case may be, 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 hereinafter provided. The allegations in the application filed by the tenants are not such which would disentitle the landlord from obtaining order of recovery of possession. The landlord has been proved to be a specified landlord. The tenants have not filed any document with the application to prove that the landlord is having other suitable accommodation in the Urban area of Mohali where the demised premises is situated. The plea raised by the tenants that the landlord wants their ejectment as to sell the property at a higher price does not seem convincing. Therefore, it is held that the tenants have failed to disclose such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession. In Surjit Singh Arora's case (supra) this Court observed as under:-
'East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Section 13-A Summary ejectment/leave to contest eviction application/Bona fide necessity. Landlord retired from 31st December, 1979, Certificate as provided under Section 13-A was also issued on 23rd January, 1987. Present accommodation in occupation of landlord insufficient. Landlord entitled to live comfortably in the company of his son and grandson-Summary ejectment proper.'
'East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-A Summary ejectment/Leave to contest ejectment application/affidavit-Summary ejectment sought on ground of bona fide necessity-Tenant under obligation to file affidavit annexing with such documents which should prove his defence - Affidavit should not be vague. Bald statement not sufficient.'
13. In 'Kapil Narain Raina, v. Lt. Col. S.S. Gill, (1989)2 R.L.R. 46, it was observed as under:-
'East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-A Summary ejectment. Production of certificate of retirement issued by competent authority sufficient. Sufficiency of accommodation in possession of specified landlord cannot be gone into under section 13-A'
14. The argument of counsel for the tenants that the landlord could have sought the ejectment from the demised premises under the Transfer of Property Act by service of notice under Section 106 and in that eventuality the things would have been much easier for him as there was no need of giving any reason for terminating the tenancy, does not make much sense. It is for the landlord to see as to how he is to seek eviction of his tenants and he cannot be condemned on the sole ground that he did not approach the Court earlier when much easier procedure was available to him. Ultimately, it is for the Court to see as to whether the landlord is a specified landlord and whether he has approached the Court within stipulated period to seek the ejectment of his tenants. This argument of counsel for the tenants is, therefore, rejected.
15. Lastly, it is to be seen that this Court would have no jurisdiction to interfere unless it is of the opinion that there has been a gross illegality or material irregularity which has been committed or the Rent Controller has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. None of such even tualities is in the present case.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this Revision Petition which is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. The respondent-landlord had retired on 30.4.1992 and had filed the Rent Application on 20.1.1996. The landlord has no accommodation at Mohali and he is residing in a rented house at Chandigarh. However, in the interest of justice, the tenants are allowed one month's time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that they pay all the arrears of rent including the period of one months during which they are to vacate the premises within one week from today and also file an undertaking that they would vacate the premises within one month from today and the said undertaking is filed before the Rent controller within one week from today.