Paramjit Sabharwal Vs. Narinder Pal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- hemant gupta, j. 1. petitioner is aggrieved against the order whereby his ejectment petition under section 13-a of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949, as amended, was dismissed.2. petitioner was employed as internal auditor in the punjab state electricity board. he was scheduled to retire on 31.12.1996. the demised premises is two storeyed building at nawanshahir. he filed the petition in may 1996 for eviction of the respondent tenant on the ground that he wants to settle at nawanshahir. it is stated that there are four rooms on first floor which are in possession of the tenant and the entire ground floor is in the possession of the petitioner. he has two sons, both of them are settled at kapurthala. his daughters are married; one at jalandhar and the other at kapurthala. therefore, the petitioner claimed that the ground floor is not suitable and adequate accommodation for him. therefore, he requires the first floor.3. the tenant was granted leave to defend in respect of inquiry regarding adequacy of the accommodation at the disposal of the petitioner. the parties have led evidence. petitioner himself appeared as aw3 and produced madan draftsman, electricity board and jograj an employee of the board as aw1 and aw2 respectively.4. rent controller dismissed the petition for ejectment on the ground that the petitioner has not given details of the accommodation on the ground floor to ascertain as to whether the accommodation with the petitioner is adequate or not. site plan ex. al produced by the petitioner was not taken into consideration as it was not got prepared from aw1.5. the findings recorded by the rent controller are absolutely incorrect and against the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in zenobia bhanot v. p.k. vasudev and ors. (1996-1)112 p.l.r. 220 (s.c.). it has been held by the hon'ble supreme court that in case of eviction proceedings under section 13-a of the act, the landlord is entitled to the accommodation in possession of the tenant from one or more tenants in respect of one residential building irrespective of proof of adequacy of accommodation. it has been so held by the hon'ble supreme court in the said judgment that 'in cases where the building is let out in parts, the parts so let out, will form part of the building itself. the second proviso cannot be construed as nulifying the main provision of section 13-a whereby this option is given to landlord. all that the second proviso provides is that the said right shall not enable the landlord to recover possession of more than one residential or scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts thereof, if the building is let out in part or parts. there are no words in section 13-a of the act to import the idea that if a residential building is let out in parts, each part will become a residential building thereby fettering the 'specified landlord' to avail the concession only from a part. the question as to whether the accommodation with the landlord after taking possession from one of the tenants is sufficient for his personal requirement or not, is not to be gone into in such proceedings.'6. in view of the above, the finding recorded by the learned rent controller are wholly illegal, suffers from material illegality and irregularity and, therefore, not sustainable.7. since the petitioner has sought ejectment from the first floor of one residential house, it was not within the jurisdiction of the rent controller to examine the question of adequacy of accommodation in his possession. as a matter of fact, even the extent of family of the landlord would justify that the first floor is made available to him.8. consequently, i set aside the order passed by the rent controller and allow the revision petition and order the respondent to vacate the premises. however, two monthstime is granted to the tenant to hand over the vacant possession thereof.