Civil Revision No. 1864 of 2007. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 1864 of 2007. [O&M] Date of Decision: 9th December, 2009. Ram Kumar Petitioner through Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate Versus Kamlesh Kumari & Ors. Respondents through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. This revision petition is directed against the eviction order dated 03.02.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar in an eviction petition filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short 'the Act'] by Surinder Kumar [since deceased and represented by his legal heirs, namely, the respondents]. The petitioner-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the tenanted portion of House No. ND-402, Sharda Nand Street Adda Hoshiarpur, Jalandhar. [2]. Surinder Kumar filed an eviction petition under Section 13-A of the Act on 30.07.1996, inter-alia, averring that the residential house bearing ND-402 was originally owned by Sarv Shri Fakir Chand and Mangal Sain – both brothers, who had divided their portions during their lifetime. While the portion marked 'ABCD' fell to the share of Mangal Sain, the portion marked 'CDEF' came to the Civil Revision No. 1864 of 2007. ::-2-:: share of Fakir Chand - father of Surinder Kumar. Fakir Chand died in the year 1966 and the portion CBEF came to be inherited by his three sons, two daughters and his widow. The portion shown in red colour in the Site Plan attached to the eviction petition, finally fell to the share of Surinder Kumar, which was let out by his mother to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.120/-. The respondents' mother also passed away in the year 1987 and since then Surinder Kumar [since deceased] had been receiving rent from the petitioner till February, 1995 but thereafter no rent was allegedly paid by the petitioner – tenant. [3]. Surinder Kumar further averred that he was employed as a Driver Mail Express, Northern Railways, Ferozepur Division on 4.5.1957 and served as such at Ludhiana till he retired from the afore-stated Central Government service on attaining the age of super-annuation on 31.03.1996. While in service, Surinder Kumar was allotted a government residential quarter No. L-46-A, Colony No. 8, Near Railway Workshop, Ludhiana which he was required to vacate within four months of his retirement. Surinder Kumar also averred that he owned no other residential house or plot any where in the urban limits of Jalandhar area or “any where in Punjab or India”. He, therefore, sought eviction of the petitioner – tenant on the ground that the demised premises was a part of the residential house, which was required by him for his own use and occupation after retirement. [4]. Section 2[hh] of the Act defines “specified landlord” which means a “person who is entitled to receive rent in 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 Civil Revision No. 1864 of 2007. ::-3-:: of the Union or of a State”. Section 13-A of the Act [invoked by Surinder Kumar] provides that a `specified landlord' at any time, within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement ...... may apply before the Rent Controller along with a certificate from the Competent Authority to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside, to recover possession of his residential building or `scheduled building', for his own use and occupation”. Such an application moved by a `specified landlord' is required to be decided by the Rent Controller summarily as per the procedure laid down under Section 18-A of the Act, which requires a tenant to apply for `leave to contest' within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice of the eviction petition. Under sub-Section [5] of Section 18-A, the Rent Controller can grant `leave to contest' to a tenant only if the tenant files an affidavit disclosing such facts as would “dis-entitle the specified landlord or as the case may be, widow, widower, child, grandchild or widowed daughter-in-law of such `specified landlord' from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the residential building or scheduled building .......”. Even where leave to contest is granted to a tenant, sub-Section [6] thereof contemplates that the eviction petition shall be decided on day-to-day basis. [5]. In the instant case, upon notice in the eviction petition filed by Surinder Kumar, the petitioner – tenant was granted leave to contest and thereafter he filed his written statement dated 28.07.1997 in which, while disputing the ownership of Surinder Civil Revision No. 1864 of 2007. ::-4-:: Kumar, the petitioner – tenant admitted that after the death of his mother, Surinder Kumar had been receiving rent though sometimes his brother Kamal Kishore, who was also co-owner of the property, has also been receiving. The rate of rent and employment of Surinder Kumar as a Driver in the Railways were also denied for want of knowledge. [6]. Surinder Kumar the `specified landlord' unfortunately passed away during the pendency of the eviction petition in which his widow, two sons and three daughters were brought on record and impleaded as the petitioners. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased filed an amended eviction petition on 29.8.2005, to which the petitioner – tenant also filed his amended written statement dated 22.11.2005. It appears that after his induction as a tenant in one room, toilet and kitchen, the petitioner – tenant had occupied one more room of the demised premises and his tenancy qua the said room was initially disputed by late Surinder Kumar but having found that the said adjoining room was also occupied by the petitioner – tenant, the legal heirs [respondents herein] of the deceased Surinder Kumar amended the eviction petition and sought eviction of the petitioner from the entire portion in his occupation. The petitioner – tenant in his amended written statement dated 22.11.2005, then took a preliminary objection that the 'specified landlord' had not approached the Court with clean hands and that while he is in occupation of one room, kitchen and toilet as a tenant, the other room is in his possession “being its lawful owner by way of adverse possession”. [7]. Both the parties led their respective evidence, upon Civil Revision No. 1864 of 2007. ::-5-:: consideration whereof, the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide his impugned eviction order dated 3.2.2007 has held that late Surinder Kumar – the 'specified landlord' was the owner of the tenant premises and he (now his legal representatives) need the demised premises for their own use and occupation. [8]. Aggrieved, the petitioner – tenant has approached this Court. [9]. I have heard counsel for the petitioner at some length, though the respondents have remained un-represented despite service. The records of the Rent Controller have also been summoned and perused, along with the impugned order. [10]. Three contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner - tenant. Firstly, it was urged that Surinder Kumar – the `specified landlord' has failed to produce his Service Certificate issued by the Competent Authority as per Section 13-A of the Act and for that reason, the eviction petition was not maintainable. Secondly, the `specified landlord' failed to prove himself the owner of the demised premises. Thirdly, no eviction petition was maintainable against the petitioner for the one room `owned' by him by way of adverse possession. It was also urged that the limitation period to file a suit for possession qua the said one room accommodation had expired and the Rent Controller had got no jurisdiction to evict the petitioner from that room. [11]. Having given my thoughtful consideration, it appears to me that all the contentions raised here-in-above are totally frivolous and de-void of any merit. In order to prove his status as a `specified landlord' within the meaning of Section 13-A of the Act, the deceased Civil Revision No. 1864 of 2007. ::-6-:: – `specified landlord' has brought on record his Service Certificate – cum- Identity Card [Ex.PW3/A] duly signed by the Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Northern Railways, according to which the deceased employee served the Northern Railways, Ferozepur Division, from 4.5.1957 till his retirement on 31.3.1996. The said certificate-cum-Identity Card was issued to late Surinder Kumar in April, 1996. In addition, the printed Service Certificate [Ex.PW3/B] signed by the Senior Divisional Personal Officer of the Northern Railways, Ferozepur to the effect that Surinder Kumar served as a Driver/ME from 4.5.1957 to 31.3.1996, has also been brought on record. The certificate also contains the personal file number of the employee. The genuineness of both the Certificates has been got established through Nanak Chand [PW2], Clerk from the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Ferozepur Cantt., Northern Railways, who has categorically deposed in respect of the Service Certificate – cum- Identity Card that the same had been “issued by the Senior Divisional Personal Officer and the same is signed by the Assistant Personal Officer. I have seen the original certificate issued by our department which was signed by the Assistant Personal Officer. He signed on behalf of the Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Northern Railways, Ferozepur. Shri Satnam Singh was the Assistant Personal Officer, who signed the certificate. I have been working with the said Department and have been seeing him signing and writing....”. Similar deposition has been made by him with regard to the Service Certificate [Ex.PW3/B]. [12]. Though the petitioner took a false plea in the written statement, nevertheless in his cross-examination, (RW1) he himself Civil Revision No. 1864 of 2007. ::-7-:: has admitted that “the petitioner Surinder Kumar was employed in the Indian Railways as a Driver and was posted at Ludhiana. I do not know whether the petitioner was retired from his service or not .....”. [13]. Suffice it to observe that Nanak Chand [PW2] who brought the original records from the office of the Northern Railways, has categorically deposed that the deceased Surinder Kumar served as a Driver from 4.5.1957 till he retired on 31.3.1996. There is, thus, over-whelming evidence on record to conclusively prove that Surinder Kumar served the Indian Railways, namely, a Central Government Department from 4.5.1957 till his retirement on superannuation on 31.3.1996. Reliance placed upon by counsel for the petitioner on a decision of this Court in Subedar Tara Singh v Smt. Bachan Kaur, 1990[1] RCR, 383 is, thus, wholly misplaced for the reason that in the case in hand, the petitioner – tenant himself has conceded the employment of the `specified landlord' in the Railways and the `Service Certificate' has also been duly proved by summoning the original records. [14]. So far as ownership of the deceased Surinder Kumar is concerned, the petitioner – tenant in his original as well as amended written statement has candidly admitted that the portion CDEF of House No. ND-402 was owned by Fakir Chand. He has also admitted that deceased Surinder Kumar was one of the sons of Fakir Chand. The petitioner – tenant has further admitted his induction as a tenant by the mother of Surinder Kumar. He has also not disputed the fact that mother of Surinder Kumar passed away in the year 1987. In para no. 6 of the amended written statement, the petitioner – tenant has further averred that “it is wrong that after her death, only Surinder Civil Revision No. 1864 of 2007. ::-8-:: Kumar deceased had been receiving the rent from the respondent. Earlier the mother of the petitioner used to collect the rent from the answering respondent and on her death sometimes her sons Sat Pal or Kamal also used to collect the rent from the answering respondent”. Further, in his cross-examination, the petitioner has categorically admitted that “Shanti Devi, mother of the petitioner let out the premises to him. After her death, her son Surinder Kumar – petitioner used to receive the rent. Volunteered that even during the life-time of Shanti Devi, the petitioner also used to collect the rent from him ....”. [15]. Fakir Chand, the original owner of the house, admittedly died in the year 1966. His widow – Smt. Shanti Devi also passed away in the year 1987. The deceased [Surinder Kumar] was admittedly one of their sons, who undoubtedly became co-owner of the demised premises through inheritance. The deceased Surinder Kumar's brother Kamal Kishore also stepped into the witness box (PW5) and has categorically deposed that the portion under occupation of the petitioner – tenant has fallen to the share of his deceased brother (Surinder Kumar). It stands established on record that the Surinder Kumar was one of the co-owner of the demised premises and before or after the death of his mother, has been collecting rent from the petitioner – tenant. Late Surinder Kumar, thus, fully satisfied the ingredients of Section 2[hh] of the Act, though it is also the settled legal position that even a co-owner can seek eviction of the tenant as a `specified landlord' subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions. [16]. The third contention, namely, that the petitioner – tenant Civil Revision No. 1864 of 2007. ::-9-:: has become `owner' of one room portion by way of `adverse possession', lacks bona-fide and is liable to be rejected outrightly. The petitioner entered the demised premises through a permissible mode, namely, as a tenant. Having entered the house in a lawful manner with the consent of the owner, the occupation of the additional room without the consent of an absentee-landlord, does not make his such possession hostile or adverse to the rights of the owner. The respondents, in any case, have impliedly admitted the petitioner's tenancy qua the said room also when in their amended eviction petition they have sought the petitioner's ejectment from the entire portion in his possession including the room in dispute. The Rent Controller was, therefore, fully competent to try and adjudicate the controversy. The decision of this Court in Sudarshan Chhabra v Paramjit Singh Gill, 2007[2] RCR, 586 relied upon by counsel for the petitioner has no relevance to the issue involved as there the landlord while pleading `forcible possession' of a part of the property by the tenant, still wanted his eviction under the Rent Act. [17]. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the revision petition which is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-. [18]. The Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the first respondent free of cost subject to the condition that the costs of Rs.5,000/- shall be released only on deposit of the copy charges by her. December 9, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE