The requirement under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is distinct from that under Section 13, and the landlord's intention to reside in his native town in his own house satisfies the requirement of Section 13A.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is tenants petition against whom order has been passed under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended, by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana.

2. The landlord Nahar Singh was employed as a Postman and retired on 30.11.1982 on attaining the age of superannuation. He filed the present ejectment application under Secttion 13A on 20.8.1986 within one year of the coming into force of the Amending Act. He sought ejectment of his tenant alleging that at presentt he was in occupation of yellow portion as shown in the site plan out of the entire property comprising of unit No. B. XVIII, 3657. He does not own any suitable house and intends to reside in the entire building and requires the same for personal use and occupation. The portion shown in red and Jamni colour was let out by him to different tenants when he wsa in service. Hence he wants ejectment of the tenant, Joginder Singh. In the reply filed by the tenant it was pleaded that the landlrod was not specified landlord and hence petition under Section 13-A was not maintainable. He also pleaded that it was barred on the principles of res-judicata as an earlier petition filed by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity under Section 13 of the Act was dismissed on 31.1.1986 vide copy, Exhibit AX. He also denied that the landlord retired on 30.11.1982 as alleged. According to the tenant, the landlord has got huge building on the front side constructed several shops. The landlord has sufficient accommodation in his possession and hence the petition was liable to be rejected. The learned Rent Controller, after framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a specified landlord and he retired from the Central Government service as a Postman. It was further found that the Local Commissioner, Dalip Garg, Adv., who was appointed in this case, has given a report that room Nos. 1 and 2 are not fit for human habitation, whereas rooms No. 5 and 7 are fit for human habitation. The landlord admittedly has to sons and one daughter. He, therefore, requires at lest there living rooms for his sons and daughter. In addition to that he also requires a room for himself and his wife. Consequently, it was held that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his occupation. The plea of res-judicata was rejected on the ground that there are different grounds for filing petition under Section 13 and petition under Section 13-A. Moreover, provisions of Section 11, Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, eviction order was passed on 12.10.1988.

3. At the time of hearing, it was contended that in the earlier application under Section 13, the requirement had not been found to be bona fide and hence was dismissed. Therefore, the present application under Section 13-A was barred, according to the learned counsel for the tenant petitioner.

4. During the pendency of this petition, the landlord moved a Civil Miscellaneous application No. 79-CII of 1989 to bring on record the subsequent events. According to the said application and the affidavit filed along with it, the tenant has shifted with bag and baggaged from the building in dispute to the house purchased by his unmarried son, Shri Gurmeet Singh in Jagjit Nagar, Ludhiana. It hs also been stated in the affidavit that the landlord has filed an appeal against order dated 31.1.1986, copy Exhibit AX dismissing the ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act and is pending for final disposal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, the present application for ejectment was barred on the principles of res-judicata as in the earlier ejectment application, copy Exhibit AX, it has been held that the landlord did not require the demised premises for his bona fide use and occupation. According to the learned counsel there