AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 13.9.1987, whereby the application for amendment of the ejectment application was declined.
The Petitioner landlord filed an ejectment application u/s 13 (A, of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the ''Act''), being a specified landlord. The application was filed on 28.4.1986. During the pendency of this petition, on account, of the family settlement, the premises in dispute fell to the share of the landlord. In view of that family settlement, the landlord sought amendment of his ejectment application.
The same was contested on behalf of the tenant. The learned Rent Controller observed that "the applicant admittedly was co-owner in the disputed property and in order to cover himself within the definition of a landlord, the alleged family settlement appears to have been fabricated so that the applicant may depict himself to be the sole owner and as such specified landlord"
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner landlord submitted that the view taken by the Rent Controller was wrong and illegal. Even if he was a co-owner earlier of the building then he was entitled to claim ejectment as specified landlord In support of this contention he referred to Jagdish S ingh Diary Wala v. Capt. Ranbir Singh Jolly (1987) 92 P.L.R. 483. It was further submitted that since there was already a family settlement and the portion of the demised premises has fallen to his share he wanted to make the necessary amendment.
After hearing the learned Counsel, I find merit in this petition. It has been held by this Court in the judgment, referred to above, that one of the co-landlord with the consent of the other co-owners can seek eviction of the tenant for his own personal need and he comes within the definition of specified landlord in section 2 (hh) of the Act.
Moreover, the family settlement took place during the pendency of the petition on 13.9.1986 and, therefore, the landlord sought the necessary amendment in his ejectment application. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the learned Rent Controller was wrong and misconceived. The necessary amendment sought should have been allowed.
Consequently, this petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and the application seeking amendment of the ejectment application is allowed with no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 7.12.1987.