Ram Krishan Chhokar vs Om Parkash Goyal

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petion is directed against the order dated 25.4.1987 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. An application u/s 13-A of the Fast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act''), as applicable to Chandigarh, was filed by the landlord Respondent against the tenant-Petitioner. The Respondent alleged that he is the specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2 (hh) of the Act and wanted to occupy the demised premises.

The Petitioner in his application u/s 18-A of the Act sought leave to defend on various pleas. On going through the same the learned Rent Controller garanted leave to the Petitioner to defend. Thus, his application u/s 18-A of the Act was allowed. The petition u/s 13-A of the Act is now pending adjudication before the learned Rent Controller.

The Petitioner is, however, aggrieved by a prima facie finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller in the penultimate paragraph of his order. The contention of the Petitioner was that the Respondent had purchased the property in dispute, in which the Petitioner was a tenant, after his retirement/discharge from Government service. There for, the Respondent is not a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the Act. Relying on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. D.N Malhotra v. Kartar Singh (Mohali) (1987) 91 P.L.R. 21, learned Rent Controller has observed that the Respondent is a specified landlord in spite of the fact that he had purchased the property in dispute after his retirement/discharge from Government service The view taken by the learned Single Judge in the above judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court in Dr D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh (1988) 93 P.L.R. 394. It was held that where the property has been purchased by the landlord after his retirement from service, he is not a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the Act and cannot invoke the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act Thus, the observations of the learned Rent Controller mentioned above are against the settled law.

Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The above observations of the learned Rent Controller are set aside. Since leave to defend has already been granted to the Petitioner, the learned Rent Controller shall now proceed to decide the application u/s 13-A of the Act in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

The parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 7.12.1988.