JUDGMENT
1. The question involved in this revision petition is about the status of Kutdip Singh landlord as a specified landlord as defined under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.
2. Kuldip Singh retired from the post of
Inspector from the office of the Central
Excise Department on September 21,1975 on
superannuation. He claimed ejectment of his
tenant Joginder Singh Bajwa from house
No. 110-C, Model Town, Patiala. Some por
tion was stated to be given on rent and some
portion was occupied by the tenant forcibly.
It was alleged that since October 1975 the
respondent was a tenant on monthly rent of
Rs. 350/-. After his retirement he wanted to
occupy the house in dispute for his own
residence. The tenant-Joginder Singh Bajwa
moved an application for leave to defend the
case, inter alia, admitting the date of retire
ment of the landlord and that inception of the
tenancy was with effect from October 12,1975
and rate of rent being Rs. 350/ – per mensem.
However, it was alleged that Kuldip Singh
was not a specified landlord. It is not neces
sary to refer to other pleadings. In the written.
statement also the tenant admitted these facts.
The landlord filed a reply to the application of
the tenant and contested the same alleging
that it was in 1973 that the premises were let
out to the tenant i.e. prior to his retirement.
The Rent Controller rejected the application
for leave to defend. However, revision filed by
the tenant in this Court was allowed (C.R.
No. 2941 of 1986) and leave to contest the
application was granted by the High Court
vide its order dated May 8, 1987. The Rent
Controller thereafter framed following
issues:–
1) Whether the petitioner is a specified landlord? OPA
2) Whether the present petition is barred under the principles of res judicata as alleged in the written statement? OPR
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for ejectment order of the respondent in respect of the demised premises on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPA
4) Relief.
3. After the evidence was recorded under issue No. 1, the landlord was held to be a specified landlord. Under issue No. 2 it was held that the present petition was not barred by res judicata. Under issue No. 3 the landlord was held entitled to order of ejectment of the tenant. Hence the impugned order was passed on November 29, 1988 by the Rent Controller, Patiala, which is under challenge in this revision petition.
4. Shri H. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the entire approach of ihe Rent Controller in discarding the evidence produced by the petitioner is erroneous in law as the petitioner had no opportunity of denying the allegations of the landlord made for the first time in reply to the application for leave to defend. Consistently, as argued, the case of the landlord had been that the tenancy started in October 1975 which stand was admitted by the tenant in the previous litigation as well as in the present case. The evidence produced by the petitioner that he was occupying other houses, such as 3S-C and 3I-C, Model Town, Patiala, before he shifted to the house in dispute i.e. 110-C, Model Town, Patiala, was wrongly ignored on the ground of absence of plea. There is force in this contention. I have already referred to the pleas taken up by the parties in the present case. Exhibit R. 1 is the petition filed u/S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act by the landlord which was earlier disposed of. It is dated April 19,1986. In para 3 of this application it was stated that earlier rent was Rs. 300/- per mensem but on October 13, 1977, the tenant agreed to pay Rs. 350/- per mensem. Exhibit R. 2 is the written statement filed by Joginder Singh Bajwa to the aforesaid application. In para 1 it was specifically stated that he was in possession of the entire house as tenant since October 1975. This petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order of the Rent Controller dated July 24, 1986. Copy of the order is Exhibit R. 3. Kuldip Singh, the landlord, also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against Joginder Singh Bajwa. Exhibit R. 4 is the copy of the plaint. The day of inception of the tenancy was not given therein. Exhibit R. 6 is the written statement filed in this suit by Joginder Singh Bajwa specifically taking up the plea in para 1 thereof that since October 1975 he was tenant in the house in dispute without any interference. This suit was again dismissed on the statement made by counsel for the plaintiff on July 28, 1986. Copy of the order is Exhibit R. 5. From the evidence aforesaid it is quite clear that the tenant had been consistently taking up the plea of inception of the tenancy since October 1975. When the present application was filed, the landlord also took up the same plea which was again accepted by the tenant in the written statement as well as in the application for seeking leave to defend the petition.
5. Question for consideration is that in view of the pleadings aforesaid should the statement of the landlord be accepted without any cogent, reasonable, trust-worthy evi-dence incorporation? P.W. 1 Kuldip Singh landlord appeared as his own witness and did state that premises were rented out to Joginder Singh in October 1973 at the rate of Rs. 300/-which was increased to Rs. 350/, -on October 12, 1975. He admitted that he retired on September 21, 1975 as Inspector: He denied the suggestion during cross-examination that earlier to Joginder Singh one Gurdarshan Singh was a tenant in the house in dispute or that he was issuing receipts to him. He denied the suggestion that aforesaid Gurdarshan Singh was a tenant in September 1975 in the house in dispute or that his son died in this very house on September 19, 1975. He also denied the suggestion that Joginjier Singh was residing in House No, 31-C, Model Town, prior to shifting to his house or lived there up to October 11, 1975 and then shifted to the demised premises. He volunteered that he could not say if he (Joginder Singh) was occupying house No. 31-C up to October 11, 1975. He denied the suggestion that Joginder Singh was in possession of the entire house. He did not produce any receipt regarding payment of electricity charges of the house. AW 2 is Ramesh Kumar, a clerk from the Customs & Excise Department, Chandigarh, who proved certified copy Exhibit A.W. 2/1, regarding retirement of Kuldip Singh. No other evidence was produced by Kuldip Singh. If Joginder Singh was inducted as a tenant in the year 1973 Kuldip Singh could have produced at least other oral evidence of neighbours to support him. His solitary statement in view of the earlier admissions made by him and accepted by Joginder Singh, as referred to above, cannot be accepted.
6, Joginder Singh Bajwa, the tenant, produced documentary evidence also to support his case that earlier to occupying the house in dispute he was residing in House No. 3I-C, Model Town, Patiala, from January 1975 to October 1975. He deposed about the gas-connection in the name of his house issued on April 24, 1975 at the said address. Mark D. 1 was produced in this respect. Learned counsel for the respondent Kuldip Singh urged that this document was not proved and admitted into evidence and should be ignored from consideration. Assuming it to be so, the oral statement of Joginder Singh Bajwa in this respect cannot be ignored. Joginder Singh further stated that prior to his residing in House No. 31-C they were residing in House No. 35-C, Model Town, from March 1, 1973 to December31,1974. He produced his radio-
licence wherein entry of House No. 35-C,
Model Town was made. Joginder Singh had
“further purchased some Units of Unit Trust of
India. Exhibit DB is the counter-foil of the
same. The address given is of House No. 35-C,
Model Town, Patiala. He gave the names of
his previous landlords as S. Jagdish Singh
and S. Surjit Singh. He also produced Exhibit
DE-death certificate of Gurpreet Singh son of Gurdarshan Singh, wherein address of house in dispute was given and the death had occurred in September 1975. RW2 Hazura Singh, a resident of House No. 112-C, Model Town, Patiala, deposed that his house is adjacent to the house in dispute. One Gurdarshan Singh was residing therein whose son
had died and Joginder Singh came in the house as a tenant after the death of the son of Gurdarshan Singh. During cross-examination he could not deny or admit that Joinder Singh was a tenant since October 1973. However, he categorically stated that on Sept. 20, 1975, son of Gurdarshan Singh died whose name was either Preet Singh or Gurpreet Singh. There is no reason to discard the evidence of Joginder Singh and Hazura Singh. The evidence of Joginder Singh that earlier he was residing in other houses was wrongly ignored by the Rent Controller for want of plea. By producing such evidence, Joginder Singh was rebutting the case of the landlord that he was tenant of the house in dispute since 1973. Otherwise his own plea was that he became a tenant of the house in dispute in October 1975. Such evidence could not be ignored on the ground that the same was beyond the pleadings. Rather it may be repeated that Joginder Singh had no occasion to controvert the plea in this respect. It is also proved from the death entry and from the evidence of Joginder Singh and Hazura Singh that in September 1974, it was Gurdarshan Singh who was living in the house in dispute and his son had also died during this tenure. There is no reason to doubt the death entry produced in this case. If Gurdarshan Singh was actually occupying the house in 1974 the stand of Kuldip Singh that in 1973 the premises were let out to Joginder Singh Bajwa is palpably wrong.
7. The tenancy in favour of Joginder Singh Bajwa started with effect from October 12, 1975 which is after the date of retirement of Kuldip Singh i.e. Sept. 21, 1975. S. 13-Aof the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act provides for ejectment of the tenant who was already in the premises at the time of retirement of the landlord and not a tenant who was inducted by the landlord after his retirement from the Government service. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in Dr. D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh (1988) 1 Supreme Court Cases 656.
8. In view of the discussion of the evidence above, it is held that Kuldip Singh is not a specified landlord and, therefore, is not
entitled to get ejectment of the tenant in this petition. Finding of the Rent Controller in this respect is reversed.
9. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order is set aside.
10. Petition allowed.