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 was thus holding a post in connection with affairs of a State. He was member of a Mitakshara family and the house in question was tenanted out to the respondent by his father in July 1982, and upon his father dying in the following month the tenant attorned to the appellant.

5. Section 13-A of the Act provides:

"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 East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, whichever is later, applies to the Controller along with a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside to recover possession of his residential building or scheduled building, as the case may be, for his own occupation, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether expressed or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately the possession of such residential building or scheduled building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts..."

6. The amendment came into force with effect from November 16, 1985. The appellant applied for eviction on May 13, 1986. Thus, within one year of the enforcement of the Amending Act of 1985, the application for eviction was filed following the procedure laid down under the Act. Appellants contention which has been rejected in the courts below has been that all the ingredients of the definition of specified landlord are satisfied and he should, therefore, have been admitted to be a specified landlord and given the benefit of the special procedure. The High Court relied upon the following observations in Malhotra case{(1988) 1 SCC 656}:

(SCC p. 662, para 11)

"It has been urged before us on behalf of the respondent that at the relevant time i.e. after retirement of the respondent from service within one year of the date of commencement of the said Act he is the landlord of the appellant and as such he falls within the definition of Section 2(hh) of the said Act and he becomes a specified landlord. This submission, in our view, cannot be sustained inasmuch as the words specified landlord as used in Section 2(hh) refer to the person in service of the Union who is a landlord at the time of his retirement from the public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of State. It cannot in any manner include an ex-serviceman who