DR. D.N. MALHOTRA versus KARTAR SINGH

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833 · Decided: 29-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. D.N. MALHOTRA 
v. 
KARTAR -SINGH 
JANUARY 29, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.J 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985: 
Sections 2(hh), 13A and 18A-'Spedfied landlord'-Who is-When 
entitled to recover possession from tenant-Landlord letting out 
premises after his retirement-Whether entitled to maintain eviction 
petition under Section 13A. 
The respondent-landlord filed an application in the Court of the 
Rent Controller under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Rent Restric-
tion (Amendment) Act, 1985, seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant 
on the ground of arrears of rent~nd for his own use and occupation. It 
was contended that the respondent retired from the service of the 
Government oflndia, Ministry of Defence on 20th May, 1949 and that 
his service was thereafter transferred to the Ministry of Rehabilitation 
from where he was discharged on 30th November, 1965 on the abolition 
of the Ministry, and that as he had no other house within the munici-
pality he wanted the house in question for residence. On receiving the 
summons of the eviction petition the appellant-tenant sought leave to 
contest the application on the ground that he was inducted as a tenant in 
the premises in the year 1968, and that Section 13-A of the Act did not 
entitle the landlord to maintain the eviction petition. 
The Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties 
negatived the contention of the tenant, allowed the application, and 
directed the tenant to vacate the premises within one month from the 
date of the order. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The appellant preferred a rev1s1on application under Section 
18-A of the Act, but the High Court holding that the respondent being a 
'specified landlord' at the relevant time i.e. within one year of the date 
G 
of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amend-
ment) Act, 1985 was entitled to get an order of eviction of the tenant 
from his house, upheld the eviction order of the Rent Controller and 
dismissed the revision petition. 
The tenant appealed to this Court. by special leave. 
H 
833 
A 
B 
c 
834 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: l. The respondent-landlord did not satisfy the basic re· 1
quirement of section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 
(Amendment) Act, 1985 and so be was not competent to maintain the 
application under section 13-A of the said Act. [842C] 
2. Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 
(Amendment) Act, 1985 in clear terms enjoins that: "Where a 
specified landlord at any time within one year prior to or within one 
year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within 
one year of the date of commencement of the said Act makes au 
application to recover the possession of the building or scheduled 
building, the Controller will direct the tenant to deliver possession of 
the said house to him". Therefore to be entitled to have the benefit of 
Section 13-A of the Act the landlord-respondent will have to fulfil the 
first qualification i.e. he must be a specified landlord in respect of the 
house in question on the date of his retirement from the service of the 
y-
1-
D Union i.e. in 1963. [840F·H] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
3. To get the benefit of the summary procedure provided in 
Section 13-A the ex"°"'ervicemen must be a specified landlord at the 
time of his retirement from service of the Union as provided in Sec· 
tion 2(hh). [842B] 
4. The respondent-landlord in the instant case, retired from the 
service of the Union in 1965, and the house in question was let out to the 
appellant-tenant in 1968. The respondent was thus not a landlord qua 
the premises and the tenant, on the date of his discharge from service 
entitling him to avail of the benefit of the provisions of Section 13-A of A 
the East Punjab Act. l842C·Dl 
, 
5. The Rent Controller has not at all considered the question 
whether the landlord is a specified landlord, but simply held that the 
landlord was discharged from service on the abolition of the Depart· 
ment of Rel-abilitation and so be was covered under the definition of 
specified landlord as given under section 2(hh) of the Act. The Single 
Judge of the High Court without considering the provisions of Section 
2(hh) of the Act held that the application under Section 13-A by a 
specified landlord seeking ejectment of a tenant was competent within 
one year of the commencement of the amended Act even if there existed 
no 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.