Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a landlord-tenant eviction proceeding under the East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949. The appellant, a retired Colonel of the Indian Army, owned House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh, which was occupied by the respondent tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000. The appellant retired on 21 February 1995 and was granted temporary permission to retain his government accommodation in Panchkula, but he was later declared an unauthorized occupant with effect from 22 May 1995. On 28 March 1995, the appellant filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, supported by an affidavit, asserting that after retirement he bona fide required the premises for his own residence and that of his widowed mother and family, and that he had no other suitable accommodation in the Union Territory. He placed on record a discharge certificate dated 18 March 1995 and the order permitting temporary retention of government accommodation. The respondent tenant appeared and filed an application under Section 18-A(4) of the Act on 7 April 1995 seeking leave to defend. The tenant alleged that the retirement certificate was bogus, that the landlord wanted to increase rent to Rs. 15,000 per month, and that the landlord had entered into an agreement to sell the house to one Mohit Nanda for Rs. 15 lakhs with a promise to deliver vacant possession. The Rent Controller disbelieved the sale agreement allegation and rejected the leave application on 30 September 1995, holding no ground for leave was made out. The tenant filed a revision before the High Court, which set aside the Rent Controller's order on 28 November 1995, holding that the Rent Controller should have considered the alleged agreement for sale because if proved it would show the landlord did not require the premises for residence. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred to Precision Steel and Engineering Works v. Prem Deva and the principles governing leave to defend in summary eviction proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Controller must confine himself to the tenant's affidavit and the landlord's reply and ask whether the affidavit discloses facts, not proof, which if proved would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession. The Court noted that the essential requirements of Section 18-A were satisfied, that the appellant fell within the category of specified landlord under Section 2(hh), and that the eviction petition was filed within the period under Section 13-A. The alleged suit for specific performance filed through Mohit Nanda was withdrawn on 11 November 1995 within 25 days of institution, indicating that the sale agreement was a device to avoid eviction. The appellant also filed an affidavit undertaking not to sell or relet the house for at least five years. The Court concluded that no case for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition was made out by the tenant and accordingly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Rent Controller's rejection of the leave application.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Leave to Defend - Summary Eviction Proceedings - East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949, Sections 13-A, 18-A(4), 2(hh) - The Rent Controller while considering a tenant's application for leave to defend must confine to the tenant's affidavit and landlord's reply and determine whether the affidavit discloses facts which, if proved, would disentitle the landlord from obtaining eviction; the Controller should not record findings on disputed facts or evaluate evidence at that stage - Held that if the tenant's affidavit discloses a prima facie defence, leave must be granted, but plausibility of defence is not proof (Paras 7-8). B) Rent Control - Specified Landlord - Bona Fide Requirement - East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949, Sections 2(hh), 13-A, 18-A - A retired army officer who owns a house in Chandigarh and requires it for personal residence after retirement falls within the category of specified landlord and can maintain eviction petition if filed within prescribed period; discharge certificate and affidavit support bona fide requirement - Held that landlord's essential requirements were satisfied; tenant's allegations of fabricated retirement certificate and agreement for sale were false, withdrawn suit indicated device to avoid eviction (Paras 3-6,8). C) Evidence - Affidavit - Prima Facie Disclosure - East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949, Section 18-A(4) - Tenant's allegation of agreement to sell was contradicted by withdrawal of specific performance suit and landlord's undertaking not to sell or relet for five years - Held that no case for leave to defend was made out (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Rent Controller's order and directing consideration of the alleged agreement for sale at the leave to defend stage; whether the tenant's application under Section 18-A(4) disclosed facts warranting leave to contest the eviction petition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that no case for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition was made out by the tenant and allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Rent Controller's rejection of the tenant's application under Section 18-A(4).
Law Points
- Leave to defend under Section 18-A(4) East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act
- 1949
- Rent Controller to confine to tenant's affidavit and landlord's reply
- affidavit must disclose facts which if proved would disentitle landlord
- prima facie disclosure not proof
- specified landlord under Section 2(hh)
- summary eviction under Section 13-A
- bona fide residential requirement
