AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jhanji, J.—This civil revision is directed against the order of the Rent Controller whereby petition u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Amended Act 1985) filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
Petitioner filed petition u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the Act) (Amended Act 1985) inter-alia. stating that he was in judicial service from which he was dismissed with effect from 17.1.1977 and falls within the definition of ''specified landlord'' and, therefore, was entitled to the accommodation in occupation of the tenant. Petition was contested by the respondent who claimed that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner was dismissed from service which would not come within the expression "retirement" and, therefore, he is not a specified landlord. It was also stated that according to the petitioner himself, he was dismissed with effect from 17-1-1977 whereas tenancy was created in August, 1978 i. e after the dismissal of the petitioner from service.
This civil revision can be dismissed only on the short ground that the tenancy was created after the petitioner left service According to the petitioner himself, he left the service with effect from 17-1-1977 whereas tenancy was created in August, 1978, Petitioner cannot be considered to be a specified landlord u/s 2 (hh) of the Act as he is not entitled to summary trial u/s 13-A of the Act. In order to claim the benefit, the landlord must be a specified landlord on the date of retirement. This precisely was held by the Supreme Court in the case of D.M. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh 1988 93 P. L. R. 394 .
The civil revision is therefore dismissed. No. costs.