Viney Mittal, J.

1. Whether the relationship between an allottee of dwelling unit allotted by the Chandigarh Housing Board and his tenant inducted by him is governed by the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (as applicable to Chandigarh)? In other words the true import and scope of provisions of Section 4 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) is a crucial question for determination before this Full Bench in C.R. No. 5474 of 2001 and C.R. No. 4775 of 2001, which are tied up and heard together.

2. Before delving any further into the controversy involved in the cases placed before this Bench, it may be relevant to notice the facts, which for the sake of convenience have been taken cut from Civil Revision No. 4775 of 2001.

3. An ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Act") was filed by the landlord Dharminder Kumar Vashisht against his tenant Avnish Sharma. The house in question being House No. 3054, Sector 41, Chandigarh was allotted to Dharminder Kumar Vashisht by the Chandigarh Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") vide allotment letter dated March 12, 1987. Thereafter, Avnish Sharma was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 425/- excluding water and electricity charges. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation. Tenant-Avnish Sharma contested the eviction application. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated December 14, 1999, held that the ground of ejectment as claimed by the petitioner-landlord was proved to be bonafide and as such the tenant was ordered to be ejected. Tenant-Avnish Sharma filed an appeal before the learned appellate authority. Before the learned appellate authority beside challenging the findings, recorded by the learned Rent Controller on merits, it was also claimed by the tenant that the provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable to the premises in question in view of Section 4 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) (hereinafter referred to as the Housing Board Act).

4. The learned appellate authority on reappraisal of the evidence found that the landlord had been able to establish his bonafide requirement of the premises in dispute. However, in view of the law laid down by a Single Bench of this Court in Damyanti Bhalla v. Pritpal Singla, (1999-2)122 P.L.R. 519, it was held that in view of Section 4 of the Housing Board Act, the landlord, being an allottee from the Housing Board, was not entitled to evict his tenant under the provisions of the Rent Act and as such it was held that the rent control authorities have no jurisdiction to pass ejectment order against the tenant.

5. Landlord Dharminder Kumar Vashisht has now filed the present Civil Revision No. 4775 of 2001 before this court. Application of Section 4 of the Act to the relationship between the landlord and tenant has been challenged. Additionally it has been maintained that the law laid down in Damyanti Bhallas case (supra) was not the correct law.

6. In Civil Revision No. 3592 of 2000 a learned single Judge of this court vide order dated December 13, 2000 has also doubted the correctness of the law laid down in Damyanti Bhallas case (supra).

7. In Civil Revision No. 5.474 of 2001, a similar argument taking the protection of Section 4 of the Housing Board Act raised by the tenant had been rejected by the learned appellate authority by holding that the entire consideration having been deposited by the landlord with the Housing Board, and in view of the law laid down in Damyanti Bhallas case (supra), the provisions of Section 4 of the Housing Board Act would not attracted. The tenant has challenged the aforesaid finding by way of Civil Revision No. 5474 of 2001 before this Court by urging that there was no distinction between an allottee who had paid the entire sale co