IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2156 of 2007 Date of decision:27.05.2009 Baldev Singh Bajwa ...Petitioner versus Ms. Bimla Dayal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate, with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the respondent. ----- 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, was filed by the landlord on 28.10.2003, when the landlord claimed that he was due for retirement on 31.03.2004. The contention of the landlord was that the property in the hands of the tenant at the second floor was necessary since he had not sufficient accommodation. 2. The tenant resisted the claim of the petitioner denying the petitioner's status as a “specified landlord” and had also stated that there was no bona fides in the requirement of the landlord. The petition Civil Revision No.2156 of 2007 - 2 - was dismissed by the Rent Controller by finding that the landlord had failed to establish that he was a “specified landlord” under the Rent Act. This deduction was made on the basis that the petitioner had not averred the respective shares which he, his wife and his brother were entitled to in the body of the petition. He also stated that the landlord had not averred anywhere that other two co-owners of the property had given the consent and that he was entitled to receive the rent in respect of demised premises in his capacity as a co-owner. While adverting to the issue of the bona fides, the Rent Controller found that it would be relevant only in a petition under Section 13(3) and it would not be relevant for consideration for a petition under Section 13-A. 3. The finding of the Court below that the landlord had not established his status as specified landlord is, in my view, erroneous. All that the law requires is that he had held an appointment to the public service post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, as per Section 2 (hh) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The further requirement under Section 13-A is that such a “specified landlord” shall be entitled to apply for eviction along with the certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the fact that he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside to the possession of his residential building. The status of the landlord as a person who was working with the Director of Industrial Training, Punjab, as Senior Assistant and in proof of his status a certificate for the competent authority had also been attached. The fact Civil Revision No.2156 of 2007 - 3 - that he was co-owner of the premises along with his wife and brother was brought out through evidence and the law does not require a specified landlord shall also be an exclusive owner of the premises. A co-owner who is entitled to receive the rent and whose entitlement is not denied by any of the co-owners, was competent to maintain the petition in his own name. The reasoning of the Rent Controller that the consent of the other co-owners had not been brought out, is erroneous for unless a want of concurrence is shown, it shall be assumed that a co-owner- landlord has the concurrence of other persons. The landlord's status as a specified landlord is established beyond doubt and the rejection of the case of that fundamental premise, in my view, is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 4. The question of bona fides of the landlord is definitely a point of issue for the Rent Controller that grants leave to defend and that passes an order ultimately for, eviction on the statement of the landlord, the Controller is bound to satisfy himself about the landlord's bona fides before ordering eviction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the requirement of proof of bona fides in a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act in Baldev Singh Bajwa Versus Monish Saini-(2005) 12 SCC 778, and the requirement of bona fides was seen through the provision of Section 18 (4) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The said provision is also to be applied to petitions under Section 13-A and the reasoning of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for proof of bona fides shall apply a fortiorari to a petition under Section 13-A also. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Civil Revision No.2156 of 2007 - 4 - repelled a contention in the above case that the word 'required' used by the legislature in Section 13-B would mean bona fide or genuine requirement cannot be accepted and Section 13-B cannot be construed to mean that as and when the allegation is made by the landlord of his need, it is not taken as the gospel truth and the tenants' right to defend on that Court is completely extinguished and given a go-by. 5. The tenant put on record RW-1 to show that the landlord had caused an advertisement to be inserted in Indian Express inviting willing parties to occupy the premises as paying guests. The document was produced through the advertisement Manager of the newspaper but the Court did not consider the effect of the document on a reasoning that the bona fides was an irrelevant issue for a petition under Section 13-A. For the reasons stated above, the bona fides is still an issue in a petition for specified landlord and the failure of the Court below to consider the same vitiates the decision. The matter is, therefore, required to be remitted to the Rent Controller for consideration of the issue relating to the bona fides of the landlord in seeking for ejectment of the tenant. The party shall have opportunity to let in evidence, if they are so advised and the Court shall dispose of the rent petition as expeditiously as possible having regard to the legislative intent of the speedier mode of disposal envisaged under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 6. The order of the Rent Controller dated 29.01.2007 is under the circumstances set aside and the matter is remitted to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration only on the issue of the bona fides of Civil Revision No.2156 of 2007 - 5 - the landlord and for disposal according to law, within a period of four months from this date. The parties shall appear on 10.06.2009, before the Rent Controller. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.05.2009 sanjeev