JUDGEMNT

Faizan Uddain, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by the landlord has been directed against the order dated November 28, 1995 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 3638/1995 setting aside the order dated September 30, 1995 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh rejecting the application of the tenant-respondent herein filed under Section 18-A(4) of the East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter the Act) seeking leave to defend the eviction proceedings initiated by the appellant-landlord.

3. The appellant is the owner of House No. 1013 Sector 27-B, Chandigarh which is occupied by the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. The appellant was in the service of Indian Army and retired as a Col. on 21.2.1995. While in service the appellant was allotted Government accommodation House No. 960, Sector-2, Panchkula. He was, however, granted permission to retain the Government accommodation temporarily after his retirement. Consequently, the appellant-landlord, after his retirement, presented a petition on March 28, 1995 before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh supported by an affidavit for eviction of the respondent-tenant by contending that after his retirement from the Indian Army he bona fide requires the premises let out to the respondent for residential purposes as he wanted to settle down at Chandigarh permanently alongwith his widowed mother and other family members. He pleaded that he has to vacate the Government accommodation and has no other suitable accommodation of his own in the local area of Union Territory where he could reside with his family. The appellant had placed on record the original certificate of discharge from service dated March 18, 1995 issued by the Big. Commanding Officer, HQ, 98 Army Brigade indicating that the appellant had retired from Army on February 21, 1995. He also placed on record original order dated February 28, 1995 granting him permission to retain the Government accommodation temporarily. He also placed on record a letter dated June 20, 1995 issued by the Station HQ, Chandimandir/Chandigarh stating that he was declared unauthorised occupant of the said Government accommodation with effect from May 22, 1995.

4. After the aforementioned petition was presented by the appellant, the respondent-tenant appeared in response to the summons and on April 7, 1995 and made an application under Section 18-A(4) of the Act supported by an affidavit praying for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition presented by the appellant-landlord. In the said application seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, the respondent-tenant stated that the certificate of retirement produced by the appellant was bogus and fabricated as he continued to be in service and, therefore, he did not fall in the category of a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2 (hh) so as to entitle him to make an application for eviction under Section 13-A of the Act. The respondent has further stated that in fact the appellant wanted to enhance the rent to Rs. 15,000/- per a month which was not acceeded to by him and that the appellant had entered into an agreement with one Mohit Nanda resident of House No. 2208, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh for sale of the house in question for a sum of Rs. 15 lacs and had agreed to deliver vacant possession of the house in question after getting it vacated from the respondent-tenant. The appellant-landlord refuting the allegation of agreement for sale of the house and stated that no such agreement has been executed by him for sale of the house in question to Mohit Nanda as alleged by the respondent.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of the affidavits and the documents produced on record, the Rent Controller disbelieved the allegation with regard to the agreement for sale of the house and rejected the application of the respondent-tenant under Section 18-A(4) of the Act seeking leave to contest the ev