The landlord's claim of personal bonafide necessity and the validity of the sale deed were central to the court's decision.

S.D.Anand, J.

1. The petitioner herein is a tenant who, having lost at the hustings before both the Forums i.e. learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority, is in revision to obtain the invalidation of the orders aforementioned which directed his ejectment from the tenanted premises on a finding that the landlord (respondent herein), a specific landlord in terms of provisions of Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), required it for personal bonafide necessity. The plea raised by the landlord (and upheld by both the Forums) in the context was that he had retired from the Government employment with effect from 31.10.2001 and that he is entitled to occupy the tenanted premises which he had purchased from the initial owner, vide registered sale deed dated 30.10.2001.

2. The landlord claims to be presently residing in the Panchkula House of his mother, along- with other members of his family. The further plea raised by the landlord was that he requires the tenanted premises and he is undergoing treatment for chest pain etc. at the P.G.I.

3. The tenant resisted the eviction action by averring that the tenanted premises (a room and a garage on the ground floor) is not required by the landlord as the accommodation available with him (one room on the first floor and four rooms on the second floor) is sufficient for use by him and members of his family. It was also averred, in the context, that the landlord had, with a malafide design, not obtained ejectment of yet another tenant who is in possession of certain accommodation on the first floor of the tenanted premises. The maintainability of the petition itself, at the hands of the landlord, was challenged on an averment that the registered sale deed in his favour had been obtained without obtaining the mandatory No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Estate Officer and it is on account of that objection that the name of the landlord had not been recorded in the Estate Office record as owner of the premises aforementioned. With a view to buttress the plea of collusion, it was averred that even after the averred date of registration of sale deed dated 30.10.2001 the initial owner had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one Vijay Goel son of Dr. S.C. Goel on 31.10.2001. In that very context, it was averred that the tenant tendered arrears of rent for the duration 1.6.2001 to 31.1.2002 to the initial landlord who accepted the tender. The plea raised thereby is that it shows the invalidity of the impugned transaction which had been entered into only with a view to enable the initial owner to obtain ejectment of the tenant by making use of the provisions of specified landlord which afford easy remedy to the specified landlord to obtain possession of premises for his own use and occupation.

4. I have heard Mr. S.M. Wadhera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (in part) and Mr. Arun Palli, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The records have been perused.

5. It may be noticed, on point of fact, that the learned counsel for the petitioner assisted this Court on 25.2.2010 by addressing arguments in part. Since the learned counsel wanted large amount of time to conclude and the heavy fixture on that date did not admit the grant of more time on that date, the matter was adjourned to 11.3.2010 for arguments. A proxy counsel appeared on behalf of the learned counsel for petitioner on that date and informed that the arguing counsel was busy before another Bench. The matter was, in view of the nature of request, adjourned to 12.3.2010. On 12.3.2010, inspite of pass over, none entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel assisted the Court on behalf of the respondent and judgment was reserved. It is being pronounced today i.e. 22.3.2010. None made a mention till date that there is any inclination on behalf of the petiti