1986 Section 13A was extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Accordingly the revision was allowed.
The State Legislature of Punjab amended the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The aforesaid Section 13A reads as under 13A. 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 companymencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act, 1985, whichever is later, applies to the Controller along with a certificate from the authority companypetent to remove him from service indication the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does number 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, numberwithstanding anything companytained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any companytract whether expressed or implied , custom or usage to the companytrary, 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.
607 08/1993 took the view that Section 13A gives a special right to the landlord to enable him to exercise the right to recover the residential building for his own occupation, if he does number own or possess any other suitable accommodation.
The High Court on 24.9.98 dismissed both the revisions and it is against these orders the appellants are in appeals before us.
Before the appeals companyld be decided, a Learned Single Judge of the High Court following the opinion given by the Bench dismissed the revision petitions on 10.5.93.
607 608/1993.
Consequently the civil appeals were allowed by judgment and order dated 14.11.95.
However, the said application was dismissed for default on 26.9.96.
Dr. Mrs. S.K.Gill and Shri Bhupinder Singh preferred two separate revisions before the High Court against the orders of the Rent Controller directing for their ejectment.
This Court in C.A. No.
The tenants on 23.7.97 filed special leave petitions in this Court against the orders dated 1.5.97 passed by the High Court remanding the matter to the Rent Controller although before filing the above special leave petitions the Rent Control Officer had already decided the matter companysequent upon the order of remand passed by the High Court.
Consequent upon the order of the High Court the landlady gave her choice for eviction of Dr. Mrs. S.K.Gill and therefore she was evicted from that portion of the building which she was occupying as a tenant.
The tenants thereafter moved a review petition against the order dated 10.5.93 but the same was rejected on 10.7.97.
The appellant having chosen number to do so, it is too late in the day to challenge the order dated 1.5.97 passed by the High Court based on agreement of the parties.
The Learned Single Judge by an order dated 1.5.97 recalled the order dated 10.5.93 dismissing the revision petition and allowed both the revisions by remanding the cases to the Rent Controller for decision on merits.
After this provision was extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh the respondent landlady filed four separate applications before the Rent Control Officer, Chandigarh seeking eviction of the tenants under Section 13A of the Act.
This order was number challenged by the tenants.
After the aforesaid decision by this Court the respondent landlady on 9.12.95 filed an application before the Rent Controller for executing the order of the Supreme Court.
In all these appeals the appellants are the tenants and the respondent is the landlady.
Consequent upon the order of remand by the High Court, the Rent Controller on 13.6.97 allowed both the petitions filed by the landlady directing the eviction of S Shri Surinder Sharma and P.K. Vasudeva who are the appellants before us, following the decision of this Court reported in 1995 6 SCC 770.
The landlady preferred two separate revisions before the High Court challenging the orders of the Rent Controller rejecting her applications for eviction of the aforesaid two tenants.
By an order dated 27th January, 1989 the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against one of the tenants, namely, Dr. Mrs K.Gill and subsequently on 15.3.89 the Rent Controller also passed an order of eviction against another tenant Bhupinder Singh.
The landlady on 10.12.96 filed a miscellaneous application in Civil Revision No.
Subsequently the aforesaid civil appeals came up for hearing before a bench of this Court.
3025/90 under Section 151 P.C. which were earlier dismissed for allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 20.12.89 in the light of the order of Supreme Court dated 14.11.95 in Civil Appeal No.
Subsequently these special leave petitions were companyverted in civil appeals which were numbered as Civil Appeal Nos.
If the appellants wanted they companyld have promptly challenged the order dated 1.5.97 passed by the High Court and obtained stay of remand order.
In the year 1975, the husband of respondent landlady who was a government servant retired from service and on 5.1.85 he died.
However, this order of the High Court was number challenged by the landlady.
There were four separate tenements in the said building, two of which are occupied by the two appellants herein.
After the dismissal of the review petition on 10.7.97 by the High Court the tenant filed two revisions before the High Court against the orders dated 13.6.97 passed by the Rent Controller allowing the petitions of the landlady.
When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, he was of the view that the question which arose in the case required companysideration by a Division Bench.
608/93.
In substance the application was for recall of order dated 10.5.93.
Aggrieved, the landlady challenged the aforesaid decision dated 20.7.92 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court by filing special leave petitions in this Court.
Consequently the question was referred to a Division Bench of the High Court for giving its opinion.
The respondent herein owns a premises in the city of Chandigarh.
By Notification dated 15.12.
N.KHARE, J. Since companymon questions of fact and law are involved in these civil appeals and as such they were being disposed of by a companymon judgment.
This is the first chapter of litigation.
On 20th December, 1989 the Rent Controller following the decision of the High Court rejected the applications of landlady seeking eviction against the present appellants, namely, S Shri Surinder Sharma and P.K.Vasudeva.
The Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that under Section 13A of the Act, the landlord companyld get an order of ejectment only against one tenant and number against all the tenants of the building and its opinion was directed to be placed before the Single Judge.
