Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.-Special leave granted.

2. The short question for consideration in this appeal at the instance of the landlord in a proceeding for eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is as to whether the appellant before us is a specified landlord as defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act. The High Court has decided against the landlord by relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh{(1988) 1 SCC 656}. When this matter came before a two judge bench, on August 16, 1988 the following order was made:

"This matter may be listed before a bench of three Honble Judges two weeks hence for consideration of the question in the light of the decision of this Court in D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh{(1988) 1 SCC 656}."

3. Section 2(hh) of the Act defines specified landlord to mean :

"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."

4. It is not disputed that the appellant was Reader to the Sessions Judge of Sangrur from where he retired on September 30, 1981. He wa