Civil Revision No. 237 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 237 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.5.2010 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sukhwinder Kaur ..Respondent 2. Civil Revision No. 238 of 2010 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sukhwinder Kaur ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. It is common ground that these two petitions must have common fate on account of their involving common question of law. The petitioner-tenant has filed the present petition to obtain invalidation of the impugned order dated 21.10.2009 vide which the learned Rent Controller, in allowance of the ejectment action initiated by the respondent-landlady directed the petitioner herein to vacate the premises within a period of three months from the date of order. The respondent- landlady had raised a plea for eviction on an averment that she had Civil Revision No. 237 of 2010 -2- **** superannuated on 30.4.2009 and requires the premises for own use and occupation. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant argued that the learned Rent Controller acted in an inappropriate manner by ignoring from consideration the fact that the relevant certification about the factum of date of superannuation of respondent-landlady had to be under signatures of the competent authority. Attention of this Court, in support thereof, was invited towards the provisions of Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which provide that a plea for eviction by a retiree has to be filed alolngwith “a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service”. In the present case, there can be no dispute with the fact that the relevant certification had not been issued by the indicated competent authority. However, that aspect would seem to have been rendered completely irrelevant in view of the fact that the respondent-landlady has since retired from service. It was held by a Single Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Vs. Uttam Singh 2005(1) L.A.R. 336 that with the retirement of the landlord, an enquiry about whether the certificate had been issued by the authority competent to remove him from service or not would lose its relevance. The following observations made by this Court in the relevant behalf are extracted hereunder:- “It is further pertinent to mention that certificate Ex.A-1 amply proves the fact that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.1996 and the petition had been filed within one year of his retirement. Once the petitioner stood retired, the enquiry whether the certificate had been issued by an authority competent to remove the landlord-petitioner from service Civil Revision No. 237 of 2010 -3- **** would lose its significance. The judgment of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh (supra) amply support this view. The employees of the Board are the employees holding an appointment in connection with the affairs of the State and would be covered by the expression `specified landlord' as defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act. The aforementioned view also finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Fateh Chand Verma, (supra). Therefore, the Rent Controller has committed an error by discarding the certificate Ex.A-1 as insufficient evidence of the fact that the landlord- petitioner was a retired employee and a specified landlord.” That certificate had concededly been issued by the District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, who is not competent to remove the respondent-landlord, a trained mid-wife from service. However, the issuance of that certificate by an authority not competent to issue it ceases to have any legal relevance or significance in view of the uncontroverted factum of retirement of the respondent-landlady. No other point was raised. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. A copy of this order be placed on the record of connected file. May 12, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge