{"id":93670,"date":"1988-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988"},"modified":"2018-11-09T18:50:24","modified_gmt":"2018-11-09T13:20:24","slug":"dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988","title":{"rendered":"Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 SCR (2) 833, \t 1988 SCC (1) 656<\/div>\n
Author: B Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, B.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDR. D.N. MALHOTRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKARTAR SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/01\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 SCR  (2) 833\t  1988 SCC  (1) 656\n JT 1988 (1)   213\t  1988 SCALE  (1)223\n\n\nACT:\n     East Punjab  Urban Rent  Restriction  (Amendment)\tAct,\n1985: Sections\t2(hh), 13A  and 18A-'Specified landlord'-Who\nis-When entitled  to recover possession from tenant-Landlord\nletting out  premises after  his retirement-Whether entitled\nto maintain eviction petition under Section 13A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     The respondent-landlord  filed an\tapplication  in\t the\nCourt of  the Rent Controller under Section 13-A of the East\nPunjab\tRent  Restriction  (Amendment)\tAct,  1985,  seeking\neviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground of arrears of\nrent and  for his  own use  and occupation. It was contended\nthat  the   respondent\tretired\t from  the  service  of\t the\nGovernment of  India, Ministry\tof Defence on 20th May, 1949\nand that  his service  was  thereafter\ttransferred  to\t the\nMinistry of  Rehabilitation from  where he was discharged on\n30th November,\t1965 on\t the abolition\tof the Ministry, and\nthat as\t he had\t no other  house within\t the municipality he\nwanted the house in question for residence. On receiving the\nsummons of the eviction petition the appellant-tenant sought\nleave to  contest the  application on the ground that he was\ninducted as  a tenant  in the premises in the year 1968, and\nthat Section 13-A of the Act did not entitle the landlord to\nmaintain the eviction petition.\n     The Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the\nparties negatived  the contention of the tenant, allowed the\napplication, and  directed the tenant to vacate the premises\nwithin one month from the date of the order.\n     The appellant  preferred a\t revision application  under\nSection 18-A of the Act, but the High Court holding that the\nrespondent being a 'specified landlord' at the relevant time\ni.e. within one year of the date of commencement of the East\nPunjab Urban  Rent Restriction\t(Amendment)  Act,  1985\t was\nentitled to  get an order of eviction of the tenant from his\nhouse, upheld  the eviction order of the Rent Controller and\ndismissed the revision petition.\n     The tenant appealed to this Court by special leave.\n834\n     Allowing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The respondent-landlord\tdid not\t satisfy the\nbasic requirement  of section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban\nRent Restriction  (Amendment) Act,  1985 and  so he  was not\ncompetent to  maintain the application under section 13-A of\nthe said Act. [842C]\n     2.\t Section   13-A\t of   the  East\t Punjab\t Urban\tRent\nRestriction (Amendment)\t Act, 1985  in clear  terms  enjoins\nthat: \"Where  a specified  landlord at\tany time  within one\nyear prior  to or  within one  year after  the date  of\t his\nretirement or  after his  retirement but  within one year of\nthe  date   of\tcommencement   of  the\tsaid  Act  makes  an\napplication to\trecover the  possession of  the building  or\nscheduled building, the Controller will direct the tenant to\ndeliver possession  of the  said house to him\". Therefore to\nbe entitled  to have  the benefit of Section 13-A of the Act\nthe  landlord-respondent  will\thave  to  fulfil  the  first\nqualification i.e.  he\tmust  be  a  specified\tlandlord  in\nrespect of  the\t house\tin  question  on  the  date  of\t his\nretirement from\t the service  of the  Union  i.e.  in  1963.\n[840F-H]\n     3. To get the benefit of the summary procedure provided\nin Section  13-A  the  ex-servicemen  must  be\ta  specified\nlandlord at  the time  of his retirement from service of the\nUnion as provided in Section 2(hh). [842B]\n     4. The respondent-landlord in the instant case, retired\nfrom the  service of  the Union\t in 1965,  and the  house in\nquestion was  let out  to the  appellant-tenant in 1968. The\nrespondent was\tthus not a landlord qua the premises and the\ntenant, on  the date of his discharge from service entitling\nhim to avail of the benefit of the provisions of Section 13-\nA of the East Punjab Act. [842C-D]\n     5. The  Rent Controller  has not  at all considered the\nquestion whether  the landlord\tis a specified landlord, but\nsimply held that the landlord was discharged from service on\nthe abolition  of the Department of Rehabilitation and so he\nwas covered  under the\tdefinition of  specified landlord as\ngiven under  section 2(hh)  of the  Act. The Single Judge of\nthe High Court without considering the provisions of Section\n2(hh) of the Act held that the application under Section 13-\nA by  a specified landlord seeking ejectment of a tenant was\ncompetent within one year of the commencement of the amended\nAct even  if there  existed no\trelationship of the landlord\nand tenant  on the  date of  the retirement of the specified\nlandlord. This view is on the face of it erroneous. The\n835\njudgments and  orders of  the Courts  below are\t set  aside.\n[841F-H; 842A-B, D] A\n     Sohan Singh v. Dhan Raj Sharma, [l983] 2 R.L.R. 465 and\nBhanu Aththayya\t v. Comdr.  Kaushal &  Ors., [1979] 2 R.C.J.\n338, approved.\n     Mrs. Winifred  Ross and  Anr. v.  Mrs. Ivy\t Fonseca and\nOrs., A.I.R.<\/a> 1984 SC 458, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2206 of
\n1987.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and order dated 4.2.1987 of the High
\nCourt of  Punjab and  Haryana in Civil Revisions No. 2371 of
\n1986.\n<\/p>\n
     A.S.  Sohal,   R.K.  Talwar   and\tP.N.  Puri  for\t the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     S.M. Sarin and R.C. Misra for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     RAY, J.  This is an appeal by special leave against the
\njudgment and order passed in Civil Revision No. 2371 of 1986
\ndismissing the\trevision petition and upholding the order of
\neviction of the tenant appellant from the house in question.\n<\/p>\n
     The landlord,  Kartar Singh filed an application in the
\ncourt of  Rent Controller,  Kapurthala under Section 13-A of
\nthe East  Punjab Urban\tRent  Restriction  (Amendment)\tAct,
\n1985, stating  inter alia that Dr. D.N. Malhotra is a tenant
\nin  respect   of  his  house  No.  694-A  within  Kapurthala
\nMunicipality; that  he was  in arrears\tof rent\t since\t22nd
\nDecember, 1984;\t that the  landlord retired from the service
\nof Government  of India,  Ministry of  Defence on  20th May,
\n1949 ‘and  his service\twas thereafter\ttransferred  to\t the
\nMinistry of  Rehabilitation from  where he was discharged on
\n30th November,\t1965 on\t the abolition of the Ministry; that
\nhe had\tno other  house within\tthe Municipality and that he
\nwanted the  house in  question\tto  reside  and\t prayed\t for
\nejectment of the tenant-appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant-appellant  on receiving the summons filed an
\naffidavit  seeking   leave  of\tthe  Court  to\tcontest\t the
\napplication stating  inter alia\t that he  was inducted\tas a
\ntenant in  the premises\t in question  in the year 1968; that
\nthe petitioner had been letting out the premises in question
\n836<\/span>
\nat different  intervals to  other tenants;  that the present
\napplication filed  by the  petitioner-landlord is  mala fide
\nand the\t defendant is  entitled to  the leave to contest the
\napplication on\tthe ground that Section 13-A of the said Act
\ndoes not  entitle the  petitioner to  maintain\tthe  present
\npetition. The Rent Controller granted leave to the tenant to
\ncontest R the petition on the following ground:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Whether the  petitioner is a specified landlord as
\n\t  defined in  Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban
\n\t  Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The petitioner  landlord examined\thimself and  he also
\nfiled a\t certificate issued  to him  by Regional  Settlement
\nCommissioner  who   was\t his   appointing  authority.\tThis
\ncertificate was\t marked as  Exhibit A-1\t in  the  case.\t The
\ntenant-respondent  examined  himself  and  stated  that\t the
\npetitioner could  not get the benefit of Section 13-A of the
\nsaid Act as he was not the landlord of the said house either
\nbefore or  on the date of his retirement from service or the
\nUnion i.e.  in 1965, the house being let out to him in 1968.
\nThe Rent Controller negatived the contentions of the tenant-
\nrespondent and allowed the application directing the tenant-
\nrespondent to  vacate the premises within one month from the
\ndate of the order.\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant-appellant  preferred  an  application  being
\nCivil Revision\tNo. 2371  of 1986  under Section  18A of the
\nsaid Act.  The revision case was dismissed by the High Court
\nof Punjab and Haryana holding inter alia that the respondent
\nbeing a\t specified landlord at the relevant time i.e. within
\none year  of the  date of  commencement of  the East  Punjab
\nUrban  Rent   Restriction  (Amendment)\t Act,  1985  (to  be
\nhereinafter referred  to in  short  as\tthe  said  Act)\t was
\nentitled to  get an order of eviction of the tenant from his
\nhouse. The  order of  the Rent Controller was upheld. It was
\nfurther held  that the decisions cited at the bar in support
\nof the\tcontention that\t the respondent was not the landlord
\nqua the\t tenant-appellant on  or before\t his retirement from
\nservice, were  not applicable to this case as the provisions
\nof the\tActs dealt  with in  those decisions  were different
\nfrom provisions of Section 13-A of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  against this  judgment  and\t order\tthe  instant
\nappeal on special leave has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  convenient to  quote the  relevant provisions of
\nthe said Act
\n837<\/span>
\nbefore proceeding  to determine the questions in controversy
\nbetween A the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Sec.2(hh):     ‘Specified landlord  means a  person  who  is
\n\t       entitled to  receive rent  in  respect  of  a
\n\t       building\t on  his  own  account\tand  who  is
\n\t       holding or  has\theld  an  appointment  in  a
\n\t       public service or post in connection with the
\n\t       affairs of the Union or of a State.\n<\/p>\n
Sec. 13-A      Where  a\t specified  landlord  at  any  time,
\n\t       within one  year prior  to or within one year
\n\t       after the date of his retirement or after his
\n\t       retirement but within one year of the date of
\n\t       commencement of\tthe East  Punjab Urban\tRent
\n\t       Restriction (Amendment)\tAct, 1985, whichever
\n\t       is later,  applies to  the  Controller  along
\n\t       with  a\t certificate  from   the   authority
\n\t       competent  to   remove\thim   from   service
\n\t       indicating the date of his retirement and his
\n\t       affidavit to  the effect that he does not own
\n\t       and possess  any other suitable accommodation
\n\t       in the  local area  in which  he intends D to
\n\t       reside\tto   recover   possession   of\t his
\n\t       residential building or scheduled building as
\n\t       the case may be, for his own occupation there
\n\t       shall accrue,  on and  from the\tdate of such
\n\t       application  to\t such  specified   landlord,
\n\t       notwithstanding anything\t contained elsewhere
\n\t       in this\tAct or in any other law for the time
\n\t       being in\t force or in any con- tract (whether
\n\t       expressed or  implied) custom or usage to the
\n\t       contrary, a  right to recover immediately the
\n\t       possession of  such residential\tbuilding  or
\n\t       scheduled building  or any  part or  parts of
\n\t       such building  if it  is let  out in  part or
\n\t       parts ….”\n<\/p>\n
Sec.18-A       “(1) Every  application\tunder  Section\t13-A
\n\t       shall be\t dealt with  in accordance  with the
\n\t       procedure specified in this section.\n<\/p>\n
\t       ……………….\n<\/p>\n
\t       ……………….\n<\/p>\n
\t       (8) No  appeal or  second  appeal  shall\t lie
\n\t       against\tan   order  for\t  the  recovery\t  of
\n\t       possession of  any  residential\tbuilding  or
\n\t       scheduled building  made by the Controller in
\n\t       accordance with\tthe procedure  specified  in
\n\t       this Section.\n<\/p>\n
838<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  Provided that\t the High Court may, for the purpose
\n\t  of satisfying\t itself that  an order\tmade by\t the
\n\t  Controller under this Section is according to law,
\n\t  call for  the re  cords of  the case and pass such
\n\t  order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.”
\n     In Sohan Singh v. Dhan Raj Sharma, [1983] 2 R.L.R. 465,
\nthe question  was whether  the ex-servicemen landlord, Sohan
\nSingh fell  within the\tcategory of landlord as envisaged in
\nSection\t 13(3A)\t of  Haryana  Urban  (Control  of  Rent\t and
\nEviction) Act, 1973 in order to have an order of eviction of
\nthe tenant  in a  summary way. Landlord, Sohan Singh retired
\nfrom Air Force on 3rd March, 1976 and on 17th November, 1978
\nhe purchased  the shop\tbearing No.  2454 in  Block No.\t II,
\nPatel Road, Ambala. On 2nd February, 1979 an application was
\nmade by\t him for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the
\nsaid shop  on the  ground that\the required the same for his
\npersonal use  of setting  up his own business therein, under
\nSection 13(3A)\tof the Act. Section 13(3A) provides that “in
\nthe case  of a\tnon-residential\t building,  a  landlord\t who
\nstands retired\tor discharged  from the\t armed force  of the
\nUnion of  India” may  apply within  a period  of three years
\nfrom the  date of  his retirement  or discharge from service
\nfor an\torder directing\t the tenant  to put  the landlord in
\npossession. It\twas held  that the expression landlord would
\nmean a\tlandlord who  was a  landlord as such qua the tenant
\nand the\t premises on the date of his retirement. Sohan Singh
\nwho pruchased the disputed shop after his retirement was not
\nlandlord of  the shop  on the  date of\this retirement.\t The
\napplication  for   ejectment  of   tenant  was,\t  therefore,
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     In Bhanu  Aththayya v.  Comdr. Kaushal & Ors., [1979] 2
\nR.C.J. 338,  respondent No.  1 who  was in Navy retired from
\nservice in  February, 1968.  Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are
\nhusband and wife owned the flat in question in a building of
\nthe Shankar  Mahal Cooperative\tHousing Society Ltd. Bombay.
\nOn 17th\t July, 1972 respondent No. 2, wife of respondent No.
\n1 both\ton her\tbehalf as  well as  on behalf of her husband
\ngave the  flat on leave and licence basis to the petitioner.
\nOn 19th\t November, 1975,  the respondent  No.  1  secured  a
\ncertificate from  Vice-Admiral Flag  officer, Commanding-in-
\nChief,\tWestern\t Naval\tCommand,  under\t the  provisions  of
\nSection 13-Al. On 24th November, 1975, respondent Nos. 1 and
\n2 served  a notice  on the petitioner to quit and vacate. As
\nthe petitioner\tdid not vacate, the respondent No. 1 made an
\napplication under  Section 13-Al  of Bombay Rents, Hotel and
\nLodging House Rates Control Act, (57 of 1947) as amended for
\nan order of his ejectment and for giving him possession of
\n839<\/span>
\nthe said  flat. The  application was ultimately dismissed by
\nthe High  Court of  Bombay on the ground that petitioner was
\nnot a  landlord qua  the tenant and the premises at the time
\nof his\tretirement from Navy and as such he could not get an
\norder of  eviction of  the petitioner  tenant from  the suit
\npremises under Section 13-Al.\n<\/p>\n
     The  question   whether  a\t retired  army\tofficer\t who
\nacquired a building after his retirement can be deemed to be
\na landlord within the meaning Section 13-Al of Bombay Rents,
\nHotel and  Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) came
\nup for\tconsideration before  this Court in the case of Mrs.
\nWinifred Ross  and Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and ors.<\/a>, A.I.R.
\n1984 SC\t 458 In\t this case  one Lt. Col. T.E. Ross who was a
\nmember of  the Indian  Army retired from Military service in
\n1967. The  property of\twhich the suit building forms a part
\noriginally belongs to his mother-in-law, Mrs. Arcene Parera.
\nShe gifted  the said property in favour of her daughter Mrs.
\nWinifred Ross,\tthe wife  of the  plaintiff, on\t November 9,
\n1976. The  property consisted  of  some\t outhouses  and\t the
\ndefendant is  a tenant\tin one\tof those  out-houses  for  a
\nnumber of  years. The  said premises  consisted of two rooms
\nand a  verandah. On  June 6, 1977, Mrs. Winifred Ross made a
\ngift of the portion occupied by the defendant as a tenant in
\nfavour of  the plaintiff.  The plaintiff thereafter, made an
\napplication for eviction of the defendant and for possession
\nof the\tsaid premises  under section  13-Al of the said Act,
\nwhich was  introduced by  an amendment\tmade in 1975. It was
\nheld by this Court that the plaintiff could not avail of the
\nprovisions of  Section 13-Al  to  recover  from\t the  tenant
\npossession of  the building  which  he\tacquired  after\t his
\nretirement. The\t word landlord\tused in Section 13-Al refers
\nto an  officer of  the armed  forces of the Union, who was a
\nlandlord either before or on the date of his retirement from
\nthe defence  service of\t the Union. It has been further held
\nthat Section 13-Al can not be liberally interpreted to cover
\nall retired  members of the armed forces irrespective of the
\nfact whether  they were landlords while they were in service
\nor not.\t Such a\t liberal interpretation\t of Section 13-Al is
\nlikely to  expose it  to a successful challenge on the basis
\nof Article 14 of the Constitution
\n     In the instant case Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban
\nRent Restriction  (Amendment) Act  No. 2  of 1985  which was
\npublished in  the Pubjab  Gazette Extra-ordinary  dated 16th
\nNovember, 1985\tconferred right on the specified landlord to
\nmake application  at any  time within  one year\t prior to or
\nwithin one  year after\tthe date  of his retirement or after
\nhis  retirement\t  but  within\tone  year  of  the  date  of
\ncommencement of\t the  East  Punjab  Urban  Rent\t Restriction
\n(Amendment)
\n840<\/span>
\nAct, 1985,  whichever is later. to the Controller along with
\na Certificate  from the\t Authority competent  to remove\t him
\nfrom service for directing the tenant to give him possession
\nof the\tpremises. This Section thus confers right on the ex-
\nserviceman who\tis a  specified landlord under Section 2(hh)
\nof the said Act to apply after retirement within one year of
\nthe commencement  of the  said Act under Section 13-A of the
\nsaid Act for eviction of the tenant. The respondent-landlord
\nwho retired  from the  service of  the Union is the owner of
\nthe house  and he  is the landlord at the relevant time i.e.
\nafter  his  retirement\twithin\tone  year  of  the  date  of
\ncommencement of\t the said  Act i.e.  16th November, 1985 qua
\nthe tenant  and the premises and the application to the Rent
\nCon troller  was made  for an  order directing\tthe  tenant-
\nappellant to  give possession  of the  suit house  to him to
\nreside\ttherein\t  as  he  had  no  other  house\t within\t the
\nMunicipality. The  respondent in  order to  come within\t the
\ndefinition of specified landlord has to satisfy two things:\n<\/p>\n
     (a) he  shall be  a person\t who is\t entitled to receive
\n     rent in  respect of  the house  in\t question  from\t the
\n     tenant-appellant at his own account. and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) he  is holding\t or has\t held an  appointment  in  a
\n     public service  or post  in connection with the affairs
\n     of the Union or of State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The petitioner retired from the post of S.D.O. which post he
\nheld in\t the Rehabilitation Department, Government of India.
\nThe petitioner\tas appears  from the  statements made in the
\naffidavit of  the appellant  and also  from the\t certificate
\nExhibit-lA filed  by  the  landlord  that  he  retired\tfrom
\nservice in  1963 and  the appellant  has been  inducted as a
\ntenant in  respect of  the said\t house in 1968. This clearly
\nevinces that  the respondent  was not  a specified  landlord
\nwithin the  meaning of\tSection 2(hh) of the said Act as the
\nappellant was inducted as a tenant after his retirement from
\nthe service  of the Union. Section 13-A of East Punjab Urban
\nRent  Restriction  (Amendment)\tAct,  1985  in\tclear  terms
\nenjoins that “Where a specified landlord at any time, within
\none year  prior to  or within one year after the date of his
\nretirement or  after his  retirement but  within one year of
\nthe  date   of\tcommencement   of  the\tsaid  Act  makes  an
\napplication  to\t  recover  possession  of  the\tbuilding  or
\nscheduled building, the Controller will direct the tenant to
\ndeliver possession  of the  house to  him”. Therefore  to be
\nentitled to  have the benefit of Section 13-A of the Act the
\nlandlord-respondent  will   have   to\tfulfil\t the   first
\nqualification i.e.  he\tmust  be  a  specified\tlandlord  in
\nrespect of  the\t house\tin  question  on  the  date  of\t his
\nretirement from\t the service  of the Union i.e. in 1963. The
\nlandlord, as it appears, has not
\n841<\/span>
\nfulfilled this\trequirement in as  after his retirement from
\nservice of  the Union  he has  let out\tthe premises  to the
\ntenant-appellant. It  has been\turged before us on behalf of
\nthe  respondent\t  that\tat  the\t relevant  time\t i.e.  after
\nretirement of the respondent from service within one year of
\nthe date  of commencement of the said Act he is the landlord
\nof the\tappellant and as such he falls within the definition
\nof Section  2(hh) of the said Act and he becomes a specified
\nlandlord. This\tsubmission, in our view, cannot be sustained
\nin as  much as\tthe words  “specified landlord”\t as used  in
\nsection 2(hh)  refer to\t the person  in service of the Union
\nwho is\ta landlord  at the  time of  his retirement from the
\npublic service or post in connection with the affairs of the
\nUnion or  of State.  It cannot\tin any manner include an ex-
\nserviceman who\twas not\t a specified landlord qua the tenant
\nand the\t premises on  or before\t the date  of his retirement
\nfrom the service of the Union. This has been very succinctly
\nheld by\t this Court  in the  case of  Mrs. Winifred Ross and
\nAnr. v.\t Mrs. Ivy  Fonseca and\tOrs.<\/a> (supra)  which has been
\nreferred to hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
     On\t a   conspectus\t of   the  decisions   referred\t  to
\nhereinbefore more particularly the decision rendered by this
\nCourt in  the case  of Mrs. Winifred Ross & Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy
\nFonseca and ors.<\/a> (supra) it is well settled that in order to
\nget the\t benefit of  eviction of the tenant in a summary way
\nthe ex-serviceman  must be  a landlord\tqua the\t premises as
\nwell as\t the tenant  at the  time  of  his  retirement\tfrom
\nservice. The  ex-serviceman is\tnot  competent\tto  make  an
\napplication to\tthe Rent Controller to get possession of his
\nhouse by  evicting the\ttenant in  a summary  way unless and
\nuntil he  satisfies the\t test that  he is a landlord qua the
\npremises and  the tenant  at the  time of  his retirement or
\ndischarge from service.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  instant case the Rent Controller has not at all
\nconsidered  this  question  but\t he  simply  held  that\t the
\npetitioner was\tdischarged from\t service on the abolition of
\nthe Department of Rehabilitation and so he was covered under
\nthe definition\tof specified landlord as given under section
\n2(hh) of the Act. The learned Single Judge of the Punjab and
\nHaryana High  Court though  noticed the decision in the case
\nof Bhanu  Aththayya v.\tComdr. Kaushal\tand ors. and also in
\nSohan Singh v. Dhan Raj but without properly considering the
\nprovisions of  Section\t2(hh)  of  the\tAct  held  that\t the
\napplication under  section 13-A\t of the\t Act by\t a specified
\nlandlord seeking  ejectment of a tenant was competent within
\none year  of the  commencement of  the amended\tAct even  if
\nthere existed  no relationship of landlord and tenant on the
\ndate of\t retirement of\tthe specified  landlord. The learned
\nSingle Judge also
\n842<\/span>
\nobserved that  as there\t was no\t provision for\ta  specified
\nlandlord after\this retirement\tto make\t an application\t for
\nejectment of  his tenant  within one year after commencement
\nof the\tamended Act as occurs in the Punjab Act the ratio of
\nthe decision in those cases cited before the Court would not
\napply.\tThis  view  of\tthe  learned  Single  Judge  in\t our
\nconsidered opinion  is on  the face of it erroneous. We have
\nstated hereinbefore  that to  get the benefit of the summary
\nprocedure provided  in Section 13-A of the said Act, the ex-
\nserviceman must\t be a  specified landlord at the time of his
\nretirement from\t service of the Union as provided in Section
\n2(hh) of  the said  Act. The respondent did not satisfy this
\nbasic requirement  of Section 2(hh) of the Act and so he was
\nnot competent  to maintain an application under Section 13-A
\nof the\tsaid Act. It is obvious that the respondent landlord
\nretired from  the service of the Union in 1965 and the house
\nin question was let out to the tenant-appellant in 1968. The
\nrespondent was\tnot a  landlord qua  the  premises  and\t the
\ntenant on  the date  of his discharge from service entitling
\nhim to avail of the benefit of the provisions of Section 13-
\nA of the Punjab Act.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  reasons aforesaid\t we allow the appeal and set
\naside the  judgment and\t orders of  the courts below. In the
\nfacts and  circumstances of the case, there will be no order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n843<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 SCR (2) 833, 1988 SCC (1) 656 Author: B Ray Bench: Ray, B.C. (J) PETITIONER: DR. D.N. MALHOTRA Vs. RESPONDENT: KARTAR SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/01\/1988 BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) CITATION: 1988 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93670","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-09T13:20:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T13:20:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988\"},\"wordCount\":3157,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988\",\"name\":\"Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T13:20:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-09T13:20:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988","datePublished":"1988-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T13:20:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988"},"wordCount":3157,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988","name":"Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T13:20:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-n-malhotra-vs-kartar-singh-on-29-january-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. D.N. Malhotra vs Kartar Singh on 29 January, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93670","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93670"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93670\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93670"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93670"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93670"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}