Judgment:
Gurdev Singh, J.
1. Petitioner-landlord-Dharam Singh has preferred this revision against the, orders dated 27.1.2003 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide which he dismissed the ejectment application filed by the petitioner under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act,, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the accommodation consisting of House No. 3177, Sector-27-D, Chandigarh.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision are that the petitioner filed the above said ejectment application against the respondent averring therein that the respondent is a tenant under him at monthly rental of Rs. 2400/-. He was appointed on the post of Superintendent by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and he retired from that service on 31.5.1999 after attaining the age of superannuation. He is, thus, a specified landlord. He is residing in Government accommodation as a licensee which is liable to be vacated by him. His family consists of himself, his wife, two sons and one daughter-in-law. He requires this house for his own use and occupation. He does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Chandigarh. As the application was filed under Section 13-A of the Act, summons were issued to the respondent in the prescribed proforma. He put in appearance before the learned Rent Controller. He moved an application for leave to contest the ejectment application which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 16.9.2000. Thereafter, the respondent filed written statement wherein he has admitted that he is the tenant in the demised premises. He denied other contentions of the petitioner and pleaded that originally he took two room set on rent at the rate of monthly rental of Rs. 150/- and later on he took on rent the other portion of the ground floor of the house and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 200/- per month. The due rent was tendered by him in the Court. The petitioner might have purchased this house on throw away prices with a motive to get the same vacated on frivolous grounds and to sell the same at a higher premium. The petitioner has already preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Act and, therefore, this application under Section 13-A of the Act is not maintainable. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:
1. What is the rate of rent? OP parties
2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the grounds alleged in the petition? OPP
3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR
4. Relief
3. On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and hearing them through their counsel, the learned Rent Controller concluded that the petitioner was not a specified landlord and resultantly, dismissed the ejectment application as not maintainable.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file and records of the case. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Rent Controller committed an illegality while concluding that the petitioner is not a specified landlord. He has not cared to go through the definition as contained in Section 2(hh) of the Act. The date of purchase of the house was not material, the only thing to be seen by the learned Rent Controller was whether the petitioner was holding an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or a State and that he either retired within one year prior to the filing of the application or that the application was filed within one year after the date of his retirement. The date of acquiring of the house in dispute was not at all material. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller is perverse and erroneous and is liable to the set aside while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. He prayed that the revision be accepted. Order dated 27.1.2003 passed by the learned Rent Controller be set aside and after acceptance of the application, respondent be ejected from the demised house.
5. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that the finding recorded by the learned rent Controller does not suffer from any such illegality. The petitioner retired on 31.5.1999 whereas the house was purchased by him vide sale deed dated 17.11.1999 i.e. after the date of his retirement. Therefore, the petitioner could not have filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act. There is no ground for setting aside the well reasoned finding of the learned Rent Controller. He prayed for dismissal of the revision.
6. The specified landlord is defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act as under:
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.
7. At the time of arguments, it was not disputed that the petitioner was posted in connection with the affairs of the State and that he retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.1999.
8. As per Section 13-A of the Act, a specified landlord may apply to the Collector within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement for the ejectment of the tenant from the tenanted premises on the ground that he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside. The ejectment application was filed by the petitioner on 31.3.2000 i.e. within one year of the date of his retirement by pleading therein that he requires the demised house for his use and occupation and that he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Chandigarh.
9. It was held by the Apex Court in Dr. D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh 1988 (1) RCR 176 that to get the benefit of summary procedure as provided in Section 13-A of the Act, the landlord must be a specified landlord at the time of his retirement.
10. Similar view was taken by this Court in Bhagat Dutt Rishi v. Ram Kumar (1988) 93 P.L.R. 394 (S.C.). In that case, the Government servant inherited the ownership of the tenanted premises from his father after his retirement and filed an application within one year of coming into force Section 13-A of the Act. It was held that such a Government servant is not entitled to the summary procedure under Section 13-A of the Act.
11. In the present case, the petitioner had retired on 31.5.1999 whereas he acquired the ownership of the demised premises on 17.11.1999. Thus, he was not a specified landlord on the date of his retirement and as such was not entitled to the benefit of Section 13-A of the Act. A correct finding was recorded by the learned Rent Controller and there is no reason for upsetting that well reasoned finding and the same is hereby upheld.
12. In the result, this revision petition is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid with the High Court Legal Services Committee.
If the costs would not be paid within one month from the date of this order, the case be listed for this purpose.