Sarup Chand Jindal vs Kali Charan Wadhwa

J.V. Gapta, J.—This order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 1641 of 1988) as both these revision petitions arise out of the one ejectment application filed by the landlord before the Rent Controller.

The landlord Sarup Chand having retired from service filed the ejectment application u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. as amended (hereinafter called the Act), on April 12, 1986(sic) Inadvertently, therein the counsel for the Petitioner also pleaded the non payment of arrears of rent by the tenant as a ground for eviction. After the notice was served on the tenant, he moved an application seeking the leave to contest the petition. It was pleaded inter alia therein that the said petition being u/s 13-A as well as u/s 13 of the Act, a regular procedure should be adopted and not the one envisaged under the amended Act At that stage, the learned Counsel for the landlord made the statement that he gives up the ground for the ejectment of the tenant on the basis of the non payment of arrears of rent as that ground was available u/s 13 of the Act. He further stated that he will press the ejectment application u/s 13-A and will file a separate application on the basis of non payment of the arrears of rent. The learned Counsel for the tenant was not satisfied by this statement who maintained that the petition u/s 13-A as such was not maintainable. This found favour with the learned Rent Controller and he held,-

I feel in view of my aforesaid discussion and the other facts and circumstances of the case that the present petition having originally been filed u/s 13 of the original Act and 13-A of the amendment Act. the procedure to be followed is not the one as prescribed in the amendment Act.

He further observed,-

The amendment Act 1985 allows the filing of the petition only by specified landlord and only on the ground of his personal use of the residential building or scheduled building and it does not authorise the clubbing of any other ground whatever is available to the landlord under the original Act

Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1640 of 1987. Earlier, vide order dated February 3, 1987, the Rent Controller had allowed the tenant the leave to contest the ejectment application. Civil Revision Petition No. 1641 has been filed against the said order

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after having made the statement that the ground of ejectment on the basis of non-payment of rent was given up, the Rent Controller should have proceeded with the petition u/s 13-A of the Act and should have adopted the summary procedure as provided under Sub-section (7) of Section 18-A of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, the approach of the learned Rent Controller in this behalf was wholly wrong illegal and misconceived.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner. Even if in the original application filed u/s 13-A of the Act, the non-payment of arrears of rent was made a ground of ejectment, but since the same was given up subsequently, the learned Rent Controller should have proceeded with the petition u/s 13-A as such adopting the procedure as contemplated under Sub-section (7) of Section 18-A of the Act No meaningful arguments could be raised on behalf of the tenant-Respondent to sustain the impugned order of the Rent Controller.

Consequently, both the revision petitions succeed and are allowed with costs. The impugned order set aside and it is directed | that the ejectment petition filed on behalf of the landlord u/s | 13-A of the Act be proceeded as such while adopting the procedure as contemplated under Sub-section (7) of 18-A of the Act However,) the order granting permission to the tenant to contest the ejectment application will continue.

The parties have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on January 24, 1989.