JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by [ENTITY] petitioner directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated 24.4.1998. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller had accepted the eviction application filed by the respondent and passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent within two months.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-landlord had filed an application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short "the Act" ) for eviction of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had taken two rooms on rent. The respondent was employed as a Boiler Attendant with the Gurdaspur Sugar Mills which is owned by Punjab Khand Udyog Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking. He retired on 30.11.1989. He was again taken in service for two years. He bona fide requires the suit premises for his own occupation because he is not occupying any other residential building sufficient for his accommodation. He has not vacated any other building without any sufficient cause. The accommodation in the house at Chowk Baba Bhoriwala, Amritsar, is utterly insufficient. The family of the respondent is stated to be comprised of his brother and two sons of his brother, namely, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] has three children while [ENTITY] has one married daughter besides another daughter of marriageable age. The other children also visit the respondent now and then.
3. Permission to contest had been granted to the petitioner. In the written statement filed, he asserted that the respondent was not a specified landlord. The respondent had sufficient accommodation with him. Three rooms with the respondent are lying vacant. He is in possession of seven rooms and two kitchen.
4. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and concluded that the respondent bona fide requires suit premises and that he was a specified landlord.
5. In this Court, the sole controversy which became the subject matter of the controversy was as to if the respondent was a specified landlord or not. The expression "specified landlord " has been defined in [SECTION] of the Act. It reads as under :-
"2(hh) "specified landlord" means a person who is entitled to receive rent is respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or State."
6. As per petitioner's learned counsel, the respondent was not holding an appointment in public service in connection with the affairs of the Union or State. In other words, if the respondent is holding an appointment in public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or State, necessarily he would be a specified landlord.
7. The expression affairs of the State" had been considered by the Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of The [PRECEDENT]. The Supreme Court was concerned with [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It was held that where the legislature has advisedly refrained from defining the expression "affairs of State" it would be inexpedient for judicial decisions to attempt to put the said expression into a straight jacket of the definition Judicial evolved. Necessarily, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be looked into. Rajasthan High Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], however, concluded as under :-
" At the time when the [ACT] was enacted the "Affairs of the State " might have had a narrow conception. "Affairs of the State" then might have related to the matters of political or administrative character relating, for instance, to the national defence, public peace, security and good neighborly relations. But on account of the changed conception of the functions of the State, the State in pursuit of its welfare activities undertakes to an increasing extent activities, which were in the past treated as purely commercial matters undertaken by the State are apt to claim the privilege relating to the "Affairs of the State" in accordance with [SECTION] of the [ACT]; vide the [PRECEDENT]"
8. Necessarily, one has to travel back to the facts of the case to arrive at a conclusion if the respondent was holding a post in connection with the affairs of the State or not.
9. But before doing so, the Court can conveniently refer to some of the precedents on the subject. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the landlord had held the appointment in the New Delhi Municipal Committee. It was held that he was holding a post in connection with the affairs of the State. Similarly, in the case of [PRECEDENT], the landlord was an employee of the Food Corporation of India. It was held that Food Corporation of India was an instrumentality of the State and, therefore, the landlord could claim that he was a specified landlord. Same view prevailed with this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT]. The landlord herein was in the service of the Jammu and Kashmir Minerals Limited ( J&K Government Undertaking). Once again, it was held that he was a specified landlord.
10. In the present case in hand, Gurdaspur Sugar Mills owned by Punjab Udyog Limited (Punjab Sector Undertaking of P.S.I.D.C.). as is borne from the record, is an instrumentality of the State. On it is an instrumentality of the State, necessary consequence would be that the petitioner must be held to be a specified landlord. In the context in which the expression "specified landlord " has been used clearly show that it has to be given a broad meaning. The landlord held an appointment obviously in public service connected with the affairs of the State.
11. For these reasons, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
12. The petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the suit premises.