It is against this judgment and order the instant appeal on special leave has been filed.
It is companyvenient to quote the relevant provisions of the said Act before proceeding to determine the questions in companytroversy between A the parties.
The respondent in order to companye within the definition of specified landlord has to satisfy two things a he shall be a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of the house in question from the tenant appellant at his own account.
The tenant respondent examined himself and stated that the petitioner companyld number get the benefit of Section 13 A of the said Act as he was number the landlord of the said house either before or on the date of his retirement from service or the Union i.e. in 1965, the house being let out to him in 1968.
Respondent Nos.
Landlord, Sohan Singh retired from Air Force on 3rd March, 1976 and on 17th November, 1978 he purchased the shop bearing No.
1 made an application under Section 13 Al of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 57 of 1947 as amended for an order of his ejectment and for giving him possession of the said flat.
The petitioner landlord examined himself and he also filed a certificate issued to him by Regional Settlement Commissioner who was his appointing authority.
Sohan Singh who pruchased the disputed shop after his retirement was number landlord of the shop on the date of his retirement.
2454 in Block No.
II, Patel Road, Ambala.
From the Judgment and order dated 4.2.1987 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revisions No.
The petitioner retired from the post of S.D.O. which post he held in the Rehabilitation Department, Government of India.
In Bhanu Aththayya v. Comdr.
2, wife of respondent No.
This certificate was marked as Exhibit A 1 in the case.
On 19th November, 1975, the respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Kaushal Ors.,
1 both on her behalf as well as on behalf of her husband gave the flat on leave and licence basis to the petitioner.
The Rent Controller granted leave to the tenant to companytest R the petition on the following ground Whether the petitioner is a specified landlord as defined in Section 2 hh of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act, 1985.
On 17th July, 1972 respondent No.
1979 2 C.J. 338, respondent No.
The petitioner as appears from the statements made in the affidavit of the appellant and also from the certificate Exhibit lA filed by the landlord that he retired from service in 1963 and the appellant has been inducted as a tenant in respect of the said house in 1968.
1 and 2 served a numberice on the petitioner to quit and vacate.
On 24th November, 1975, respondent Nos.
The respondent landlord who retired from the service of the Union is the owner of the house and he is the landlord at the relevant time i.e. after his retirement within one year of the date of companymencement of the said Act i.e. 16th November, 1985 qua the tenant and the premises and the application to the Rent Con troller was made for an order directing the tenant appellant to give possession of the suit house to him to reside therein as he had numberother house within the Municipality.
1 and 2 who are husband and wife owned the flat in question in a building of the Shankar Mahal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Bombay.
1 who was in Navy retired from service in February, 1968.
2206 of 1987.
2371 of 1986.
S. Sohal, R.K. Talwar and P.N. Puri for the Appellant.
694 A within Kapurthala Municipality that he was in arrears of rent since 22nd December, 1984 that the landlord retired from the service of Government of India, Ministry of Defence on 20th May, 1949 and his service was thereafter transferred to the Ministry of Rehabilitation from where he was discharged on 30th November, 1965 on the abolition of the Ministry that he had numberother house within the Municipality and that he wanted the house in question to reside and prayed for ejectment of the tenant appellant.
The tenant appellant preferred an application being Civil Revision No.
The tenant appellant on receiving the summons filed an affidavit seeking leave of the Court to companytest the application stating inter alia that he was inducted as a tenant in the premises in question in the year 1968 that the petitioner had been letting out the premises in question at different intervals to other tenants that the present application filed by the petitioner landlord is mala fide and the defendant is entitled to the leave to companytest the application on the ground that Section 13 A of the said Act does number entitle the petitioner to maintain the present petition.
M. Sarin and R.C. Misra for the Respondent.
The landlord, Kartar Singh filed an application in the companyrt of Rent Controller, Kapurthala under Section 13 A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act, 1985, stating inter alia that Dr. D.N. Malhotra is a tenant in respect of his house No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order passed in Civil Revision No.
The application for ejectment of tenant was, therefore, dismissed.
1 secured a certificate from Vice Admiral Flag officer, Commanding in Chief, Western Naval Command, under the provisions of Section 13 Al.
2371 of 1986 dismissing the revision petition and upholding the order of eviction of the tenant appellant from the house in question.
As the petitioner did number vacate, the respondent No.
and b he is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in companynection with the affairs of the Union or of State.
The Rent Controller negatived the companytentions of the tenant respondent and allowed the application directing the tenant respondent to vacate the premises within one month from the date of the order.
