Ram Sarup vs Fateh Chand

Gokal Charnd Mital, J.—Fateh Chand retired from Punjab Police Service in the year 1970. Since 1974 Ram Sarup was a tenant of a residential house owned by Prem by Prem Dutt. On the basis of will executed by Piem Dutt in favour of Fateh Chand, Fateh Chand got the house under a Court dated 9th November, 1983.

Thereafter, Fateh Cband filed an application dated 11 6.1985 u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, )949 (for short the Act''), seeking ejectment of tenant Ram Sarup inter alia on the ground of personal necessity. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, Section 13-A was inserted in the Act with effect from 15th November, 1985, as a result of which a new ground for summary eviction was added to enable the retired Government servants to secure ejectment of their houses for their personal occupation by proving that they are specified landlords, which is defined in Section 2 (hh). In view of the aforesaid amendment. Fateh Chand amended his eviction petition and added the ground of ejectment u/s 13-A of the Act.

During trial he continued to pursue for ejectment both u/s 13 A as well as u/s 13 of the Act, but only on the ground of personal necessity. The Rent Controller by order dated 26th September, 1986 came to the conclusion that the landlord was a specified landlord and was entitled to ejectment u/s 13-A of the Act. He also concluded that the landlord was able to prove the case of bona fide necessity u/s 13 of the Act, In view of the findings recorded on both the issues the tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession to the landlord.

The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority Hoshiarpur, but the said Authority vide order dated 11th August, 1987 dismissed the appeal on the finding that the same did not lie against the impugned order. The Appellate Authority only kept in view the provision of appeal in regard to order u/s 13-A of the Act, under which of course, no appeal lies, but orders passed u/s 13 of the Act are appealable, Probably, this was over-looked.

Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has come to this Court in this revision.

The first argument raised on behalf of the tenant is that the landlord is not specified landlord as he retired in the year 1070 from the police service and acquired ownership of the house in the year 1983. In support he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in 1988 (1) R. C. R. 1771. I have gone through the aforesaid decision. It is held therein that the landlord should be specified landlord on the date of retirement and it is only then that he can take benefit Of the provisions pf Section 13-A of the Act. In this case the landlord had retired long before he became the owner and, therefore, was not entitled file an application for summary eviction u/s 13-A of the Act. The order of ejectment passed under this provision by the Rent Controller is without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside.

Adverting to the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller u/s 13 of the Act, that is undisputable appealble before the Appellate Authority which is the District/Additional District Judge, having the powers of the Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority in this case overlooked the aspect that the appeal was maintainable against the order of ejectment parsed u/s 13 of the Act Since the only matter which remained for settlement was with regard to ejectment u/s 13 of the Act, the appeal filed by the tenant was in order.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, dated nth August, 198,7 dismissing the appeal as incompetent with regard to ejectment order passed u/s 13 is concerned, is illegal, and after setting aside to that extent, the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, for deciding the appeal of the tenant u/s I ? of the Act, confining decision only to the point whether the Rent Controller was right in ordering ejectment of the tenant oh the ground of personal necessity, which is one of the grounds bon tenant in Section 13 of the Act.

The Appellate Authority will issue notice to the parties before proceeding further with appeal.

The revision stands disposed of accordingly.