ORDER
J.V. Gupta, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated June 15,1989, whereby permission to contest the said application was disallowed and consequently the eviction order was passed.
2. Landlord Daulat Ram being a specified landlord filed a petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for the ejectment of his tenant Shakil Hussan from the premises in dispute which is house No. 11 v4, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh. It was stated in the application that the landlord retired from service on November 30, 1988, as Planning Officer, Office of Director and Warden of Fishries, Punjab, Chandigarh, after attaining the age of superannuation. He also stated that the premises in dispute was also allotted to him vide letter dated March 20, 1969. During his service he was occupying the government house which was now being got vacated from him after his retirement. According to the landlord, he purchased the premises in dispute with the sole object to settle at Chandigarh and reside in the said house with his family members after the retirement, He also stated that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Union Territory Cnandigarh.
3. On receipt of the notice of this petition the tenant filed the application for leave to defend inter alia, on the grounds that the petition as framed is not maintainable in law as the same is not accompanied by a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement; that the house in question was exempted from the operation of the Act; and lastly the petition has been filed with mala fide motives to increase the rent from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 2000/-. Reply to the said affidavit was filed on behalf of the landlord denying all the allegations made by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that the certificate placed on the record indicating the date of his retirement is sufficient to satisfy the mind of the Court that the landlord has retired from service with effect from November 30, 1988. Moreover, the tenant never contended anywhere that the landlord was not a specified landlord as defined under the Act and therefore not entitled to get the benefit of Section 13-A of the Act. As regards the objection raised by the tenant that it has nowhere been mentioned that the landlord has intention to reside in the local area of Chandigarh after his retirement, the learned Rent Con- troller found that though in the affidavit of the landlord filed along with ths petition under Section 13-A of the Act, it has been mentioned that he required the demised premises for his as well as for his family use and occupation, though it has not been mentioned as to where he intended to reside after the retirement. The further objection that the building was exempted from the operation of the Act, was negatived as Section 13-A was overriding any notification issued under the Act. Consequently, leave to contest was disallowed and eviction order was passed granting two months’ time to the respondent-tenant for vacating the premises in dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the tenant vehemently submitted that the landlord intentionally omitted to mention in the application as well as in the affidavit that he intended to reside in the demised premises after retirement because he has no intention to settle in India as he is already a green card holder in USA. One of his son is already residing there as its citizen. The second son though in Chandigarh is living separately. Only the third son is living with the landlord, who also intends to go to States ultimately. In support of his contention he has referred to certain entries made on the passport of the landlord to this effect. Thus, argued the learned counsel that since the landlord has no intention to reside in the demised premises, he was not entitled to seek eviction under Section 13-A of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the landlord visited U.S.A. first time on July 31, 1988 during his service tenure and again visited U.S.A. on July 24, 1989 and he ultimately intends to settle there and that is why he purposely did not make any averment either in the ejectment petition or in the affidavit. He also urged that the certificate filed alongwith the petition was not in accordance with the previsions of Section 13-A of the Act, and, therefore, the tenant was entitled to leave to contest the ejectment petition.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the landlord sub- mitted that in the affidavit it has been clearly stated that the landlord required the demised premises for his as well as for his family use and occupation. In the ejectment petition also in para 6 it was stated that the petitioner purchased the said house, i e., House No. 1194, Sector 43 B, Chandigarh, with the sole object to settle at Chandigarh and to reside in the said house with his family members after his retire- ment. Thus, argued the learned counsel that this was sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 13-A. He also submitted that even if the landlord was a green-card holder that does not debar him for seeking ejectment of his recant. He does not own any other house in the urban area of Chandigarh. At present he was residing in the govern- ment accommodation which is now being got vacated from him after retirement. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the eviction order has been rightly passed. He also submitted that the building was not exempted from the operation of the Act as regards Section 13-A. In any case the application has been filed after more than five years from the date when the possession was delivered to the landlord by the Housing Board. In support of his contention, he referred to Sham Lal v. Kashmiri Lal, (1989-1) 95 P.L.R. 459 and Raghunath Chander Sharma v. Harmesh Kumar, (1989-2) 96 P.L.R. 325.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, I do not find any merit in this petition.
7. The requirement under Section 13-A and the affidavit filed is [ to the effect that the landlord does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside to recover possession of his residential building. The words ‘he in- tends to reside’qualify the earlier clause, i.e., the local area. From the contents in the ejectment application, it has been clearly stated in para 5 that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Union Territory Chandigarh. Thus, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the tenant-petitioner that the requirements of Section 13-A were not complied with. In any case if the landlord fails to occupy the premises after evicting his tenant under Section 13-A, remedy has been provided under Section 19(2-A) which provides that if the landlord does not occupy the accom- modation for a continuous period of three months from the date of such eviction under Section 13-A or lets out whole or any part of such building from which the tenant was evicted, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or both. That being so, in case the landlord fails to occupy the premises as provided the tenant may seek his remedy in accordance with law, but on apprehension alone the eviction order could not be set aside. It was held by this Court in Raghunath Chander Sharma’s case (supra) that once the landlord satisfies the condition of Section 13 A the Rent Controller could not | go into the question of bonafids need of the landlord. In Sham Lals case (supra) it was held by this Court that Section 13A applies notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force, Under the circumstances, 1 do not find any impropriety or illegality in the impugned order as to be intesfered with in revisional jurisdiction.
8. Consequently, the revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed one month’s lime to vacate the premises provided an undertaking in writing is filed within a week with the Rent Controller that after the expiry of the said period vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord. The arrears, if any, and advance rent for one month will also be deposited along with the said undertaking within one week.