Judgment

RAY, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order passed in Civil Revision No. 2371 of 1986 dismissing the revision petition and upholding the order of eviction of the tenant-appellant from the house in question.

2. The landlord, Kartar Singh filed an application in the court of Rent Controller, Kapurthala under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, stating inter alia that Dr D. N. Malhotra is a tenant in respect of his house No. 694-BA within Kapurthala Municipality ; that he was in arrears of rent since December 22, 1984 ; that the landlord retired from the service of Government of India, Ministry of Defence on May 20, 1949 and his service was thereafter transferred to the Ministry of Rehabilitation from where he was discharged on November 30. 1965 on the abolition of the Ministry : that he had no other house within the Municipality and that he wanted the house in question to reside and prayed for ejectment of the tenant-appellant.

3. The tenant-appellant on receiving the summons filed an affidavit seeking leave of the court to contest the application stating inter alia that he was inducted as a tenant in the premises in question in the year 1968 : that the petitioner had been letting out the premises in question at different intervals to other tenants ; that the present application filed by the petitioner-landlord is mala fide and the defendant is entitled to the leave to contest the application on the ground that Section 13-A of the said Act does not entitle the petitioner to maintain the present petition. The Rent Controller granted leave to the tenant to contest the petition on the following ground :

Whether the petitioner is a specified landlord as defined in Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985.

4. The petitioner-landlord examined himself and he also filed a certificate issued to him by Regional Settlement Commissioner who was his appointing authority. This certificate was marked as Ex. A-1 in the case. The tenant-respondent examined himself and stated that the petitioner could not get the benefit of Section 13-A of the said Act as he was not the landlord of the said house either before or on the date of his retirement from service of the Union i.e. in 1965, the house being let out to him in 1968. The Rent Controller negatived the contentions of the tenant-respondent and allowed the application directing the tenant-respondent to vacate the premises within one month from the date of the order.

5. The tenant-appellant preferred an application being Civil Revision No. 2371 of 1986 under Section 18-A of the said Act. The revision case was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana holding inter alia that the respondent being a specified landlord at the relevant time i.e. within one year of the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (to be hereinafter referred to in short as the said Act) was entitled to get an order of eviction of the tenant from his house. The order of the Rent Controller was upheld. It was further held that the decisions cited at the bar in support of the contention that the respondent was not the landlord qua the tenant-appellant on or before his retirement from service, were not applicable to this case as the provisions of the Acts dealt with in those decisions were different from provisions of Section 13-A of the said Act.

6. It is against this judgment and order the instant appeal on special leave has been filed.

7. It is convenient to quote the relevant provisions of the said Act before proceeding to determine the questions in controversy between the parties :

2(hh) Specified landlord means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.

13-A. Where a specified landlord at any