39 1 1 AV 0 RevisionNo 237 of 2010 21 Civil k4111 1 IN THE HIGHCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 Civil Revision No 237 of 2010 Date of decisiotil 122010 1 C BalwinderSingh e etitioner 0 Versus 0 1 Z SukhwinderKaur espondent C5 1 2 Civil Revision No 238 of 2010 Z Bwinder Singh Oetitioner Versus er 7 6 I SukhwinderKaur espondent 1 08 1 1 r JOSTICE SANAND 2 CORAMl HONBLE MR 1 7 1 Z Presentl Mr AmarjitMarkan Advocate for the petitioner Mr PGhuman Advocatefor the respondent 1 SDANAND J It is common gr2undthat these two petitionsmust have common fate on account of the r involvingcommon queStionOf Iaw The has filecjthe presentpetitionto obtain 4 a 14 1 Il Rent Controller in allowance of the ejectmentactioh initiated by the directed the petitionerherein to vaate the Premises 1 1 1 1 t within a period of three moiittsfrom the date of order I he respondent 1 Iandladyhad raised a pleal or evictionon an averment that she h8d 1 1 v e CAt Kumar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 43 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 40 01 Revision No 237 of 2010 2e Civil tkRlc on 3042009 and requiresthepremisesfor own use and occupation Learnedcounsel appearingon behalfof the that the IearnedRent Controller acted in l itlprOpriatemanner argued byignoring from the fact that the relevantcertiOcationabout 1r of had to be thefactum of date of 0 under of the competent authority AttentionOf this Coun in 0 of Section 13A of the sUppoit thereof was invitedtowardsthe provisions C5 4 Rent RestrictionAct 1949whichprovidethat a pleafor EastPunjabUrban 1 e 4 evictionbya retiree has 10 be filed a cetificate om the 71 1 Z competent to remolim from service 1 In the case there can be nodisputewith the fact that C 1 the relevant certificationhadnot been issued by the indicatedcompetent I 08 authority that as oect would seem to have been rendered 12 in Cfthe factthat the has VleW 7 f bya SingleBerich of this Court in retiredfrom s6rvice It was held 5 Since f Z 1 1 336that with theretirementof 1 SohanLal Vs OttdmSinqh 100511LAR rl m Z l r 11 hd been issuedby 1 the Iandlord an enqUllYaboulwhetherthe I l 9 el1 the colnpetent to re nove him fromservice ornot would Iose its 1e1 j 1 1 bythis Court in the relevant t l relevance The foll6WingobseIvationsmade 1 e111 1 behalfare extractedhereunde 1 7e 1 1 l 1 I J It iS further pertirlent to that certificateExA4 amply 1 1 11 provesthe fact ttat the had retirl from on 1 1 1 In n l 311271996and te petition had been 11 f Il hisretiment Cnce the petitioner stood retiredthe enguiry r 7 1 1 issuell IlOthoolty I n Whether the c ificate had been t 1 1 l n1 1J1 1 r 4 1 I n 1 44 i 7 competentto remove the 7f l Il ii V a1 1 1 1 n 1 t51 4 t st 1 Ill 1 1 l 1 06 6 91 Il 1 I e Il i l 11 1 1 j 1 1 6 Il 4 Ie Io 1 1 17 7 Kumar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 43 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 vI wxrv Jr 1 t Il 1 2 75 6 45 IlF 1 CivilRevisionNo 237 of 2010 e3m 1 4 R1cRk 9i 6 1 would Iose its The judgment of this Court in the r 1 case of Singh supralamplysupportthis view The ke l an 1f of the Board ate the employeesholding e 1 in connectionwith the affairsof the State and 11 512 theexpressionspeciOedIandlor as 18 would be covered by 51 P 1 definedin Section 2hhlof the Act The aforementioned View I K 3 61 25n 7 I 7 also finds from the judgment of this Court in the case 2 0 1 17 1 I of Fateh Chand Verma Isupral Therefore the Rent C5 Il r Controller hascommittedan error by discardingthe ceniOcate 1 1e 1 Ex1 as evidence of the fact that the Iandlordw 1 t was a retiredemployee and a speci6edIandlord t1 1 Thatcettitlcate had concededly been issued 6y the District 6 f 3 and Un8ni Officer who is not competentto remove the 50 1 08 I 16 tl a trained midewifefrom servicel However the n 8 1 issuanceof that certificateby 3nauthority not competentto issue it ceases t t i 7 1 ewm 6n7 r to have any Iegal reIevance cr significance in view of the Uncontroverted 1 14 1 k factum of retirementbfthe Om 1 1 4 4 No othetpointwa s raised 1 1 11 5 In the Iiht of foregoingdiscussionthe peitioniS held to be 1 71 7y t 146n 1 denude8 of meritan8isordertedto be dismissed The Iletitioner shall have re 1 nl tim6froriltodayto Iiacate the 1 t1 Y i k 7 e 5 11 1 1 4r 1 DlASl Il May 12 2010 e 4 1 j 1 r 1 Ka 1 1 11 21 l 1n 1 1 e1e2oek e j l 5r Il 1 9e l 1 1r 6n2 r Il 6 1 1 S 1 elt e 1 1 11 1 1 1 3641 01 t 11 5 L1 2 l e 1 15544 5 If 1 4 V 1 9 Kumar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 43 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document