Shri Jagtar Singh vs Roshan Lal

H.S. Bedi, J.—Roshan Lal, a retired Superintendent of Haryana Civil Secretariat (herein after to as the landlord) filed an application u/s 13 A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (briefly ''the Act'') for the ejectment of his tenant, Jagtar Singh, from House No. HJ-40, Housing Board Colony, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. It was averred that he was the landlord/owner of the said house w.e.f. 18-8-1989, i.e, the date on which the sanction regarding transfer of ownership of the house from the name of his son to his name, was received from the Punjab Housing Board vide Exhibit A-l. It is urged on this basis that with effect from that date, he became a ''specified landlord'' in terms of the act and having retired on 31-10-1989 was entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant u/s 13- A thereof.

In the reply to the application filed by the landlord, the stand of the tenant-petitioner herein, was that there was no transfer of ownership in the name of landlord as sought to be made out from Exhibit A-l, and if at all, the transfer had been effected, it was only on 12-12-1989 when the hire purchase agreement envisaged by Exhibit A-l was executed by him in favour of the Housing Board. It has been argued that on the date of his retirement i. e. 31.10. 1989, the owner of the property was not R. L. Anand, but his son Vijay.

The Rent Controller discussed the evidence both oral as well as documentry, and came to the conclusion that the ownership of the property sood in the name of R. L. Anand w.e.f. 18-1-1989, and the execution of the hire-purchase agreement, Annexure A-l, was a mere formality to be completed between the Housing Board and the landlord and after 18-8-1989, the earlier owner of the property, i.e. Vijay Anand did not come to the picture at all. On this finding, the eviction of the tenant was ordered. The present petition has been filed impugning the said order.

The only argument advanced by Mr. V. G. Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the date of retirement, i. e. 31-10-1989, the landlord was not a ''specified landlord'' and therefore, not entitled to seek ejectment u/s 13-A of the Act. He has urged that the document, Exhibit A-l, on which primary reliance has been placed by the Rent Controller, was in fact only a sanction to transfer at a future date and not itself a document of transfer. He has also urged that ever assuming it to be a document of transfer the execution of the hire purchase agreement between the Housing Board and the landlord envisaged in that document was executed only on 7-12-1989 and the transfer, if at all was completed on that date. In furtherance of this argument, he has also urged that it was for the landlord to show by documentry evidence as to the date on which the actual transfer had been made in the records of the Housing Board.

In answer to the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been urged by Mr. S. C. Kapoor, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondent that the document, Exhibit A-l was in fact a document of transfer as it identified the parties as transferor and transferee in any case, even assuming, the formality of the execution of the hire-purchase agreement had to be complied with it would relate back to 18-8-1989, when the sanction was received vide Exhibit A-l. He has also urged that it was for the petitioner to have produced evidence to show that in fact the date of transfer was after 31-10-1989, i.e. date of retirement of the landlord.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the revision petition. The Rent Controller examined the document, Exhibit A-l, in the light of the statement of Sukhminder Singh, A.W. 1, to arrive at conclusion that the transfer was completed on 18-8-1989. It has been stated by Sukhminder Singh that as per practice of the Housing Board, the document Exh. A-l, itself was a document of transfer and no other formality was required to be complied with.

Sukhminder Singh has also stated that the transfer was not dependent on the execution of the hire-purchase agreement but the practice was that in case it was not executed, the transfer was cancelled: Mr. Kapoor has explained this way by stating, and I believe, correctly, that this situation could perhaps exist in case the hire purchase agreement was not executed as required but where the hire purchase agreement ''had admittedly'' been executed, though at a later date, the transfer would relate back to the date on which sanction was obtained, that is 18-8-1989 in the present case The respondent was therefore a ''specified landlord'' in terms of Section 13-A of the Act, and therefore competent to seek ejectment of his tenant on that basis.

For the reasons recorded above the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises in dispute provided the rent upto that date is paid him within one month from today.