IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4909 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.08.2009 Satish Kumar .....Petitioner versus Jatinder Kumar .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant whose application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed under Section 13- A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to U.T. Chandigarh (for short “the Act”), has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 12.8.2009. The respondent-landlord has filed the above mentioned eviction petition under Section 13-A of the Act, claiming himself to be a `specified landlord' on the premise that he is due for retirement from the Power Grid Corporation, Chandigarh (a Government of India enterprises) C.R. No.4909 of 2009 (O&M) 2 on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.4.2009. It is averred that the H.No.3295, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh is jointly owned by the respondent-specified landlord and his brother Varinder Kumar and as per the settlement arrived at between them, the ground floor of the house is occupied by Varinder Kumar whereas, the first floor and the Barsati i.e. 2nd floor comprising two rooms, came to the share of the respondent-specified landlord. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the Barsati portion of the house on a rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. The respondent further averred that since he is due for retirement w.e.f. 30.4.2009 after attaining the age of superannuation and requires the let out portion for his personal use and occupation, the possession thereof be delivered to him immediately by getting its vacated from the tenant through summary proceedings under Section 18-A of the Act. On receipt of the notice as per Schedule-II, the petitioner- tenant applied for leave to contest under Section 18-A (4) of the Act, inter- alia, on the grounds that: (i) the respondent-landlord is already in occupation of the first floor and thus, does not require the demised premises for his own use and occupation; (ii) there is already an eviction petition pending on the ground of 'personal necessity' under Section 13 of the Act, and (iii) the certificate of retirement attached by the respondent- landlord is not issued by the competent authority as prescribed under the Act. The application for leave to contest has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, giving rise to this revision petition. C.R. No.4909 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that in view of the decision of this Court in “Mrs.Kushal Takhar versus Gurinder Singh, 2009 (1) P.L.R.344”, if a landlord is already in occupation of a portion of the residential house, that by itself raises a triable issue and the tenant is entitled to be granted leave to contest. It is argued that the certificate of retirement of the respondent is not issued by the competent authority and in view of the pendency of another eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of personal necessity, the present eviction petition is not maintainable at this stage. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant at some length, I do not find any merit in the contentions noticed above. The petitioner's case is not that the respondent is not an employee of the Power Grid Corporation or he is not due for retirement from service after attaining the age of superannuation on the date claimed by him. Certification of the date of retirement by an authorised Officer of the Employer Department would be sufficient for the Rent Controller to entertain the eviction petition of such retiree, under Section 13-A of the Act, unless the factum of employment and/or retirement of the landlord is disputed by the tenant. As regards the pendency of previous eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, in my considered view, the provision to seek eviction of a tenant under Section 13 of the Act on one hand and under Section 13-A of the Act on the other hand, are two distinct and separate remedies. While a landlord can seek eviction of his tenant on any of the C.R. No.4909 of 2009 (O&M) 4 grounds contained in Section 13, only a specified landlord can invoke summary procedure of eviction on the solitary ground of personal necessity under Section 13-A of the Act. The institution of eviction petition by the respondent as an ordinary landlord under Section 13 of the Act, therefore, does not take away his entitlement to seek eviction of the tenant summarily if during the pendency of the first petition, he acquires the status of a `specified landlord' within the meaning of Section 13-A of the Act. So far as the reliance placed upon by the petitioner on a decision of this Court in Mrs.Kushal Takhar's case (supra), suffice it to say that no general principle can be laid down that where a 'specified landlord' is in possession of a part of the premises, it will always give rise to triable issue(s). The facts of each case and relevant considerations like the accommodation already available with the landlord, his total family members or frequent visitors, standard of living, privacy, near future requirement etc., have a direct relevance to determine as to whether or not the tenant should be granted leave to contest. On a query put forth, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that there are only two bed rooms available on the first floor of the house. There can hardly be any doubt on the bonafide necessity and genuineness of the requirement of the landlord who undoubtedly requires a separate bed room for his major son and at least bed room for his guests and other family members. Granting of leave to contest on trivial objections raised by the tenant would otherwise defeat the legislative intent C.R. No.4909 of 2009 (O&M) 5 behind Section 13-A read with Section 18-A of the Act. Moreover, the petitioner-tenant has no right to dictate or advice the landlord in this regard. No case to interfere with the impugned order is, thus, made out. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 28-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE