The certificate issued by the Commanding Officer stating that the landlord was serving under war conditions was conclusive evidence of his service under special conditions, as defined in the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925, and a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not required to terminate the tenancy under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

P.C.Pandit, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) filed by the tenant against the decision of the appellate authority confirming on appeal the order of the Rent Controller evicting him from the premises in dispute.

2. On 30th of May, 1967, Major Gurmitinder Singh Grewal filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for the eviction of his tenant, Raj Kumar, from a residential house situate on College Road in Ludhiana. His allegations were that he had let out the house to Raj Kumar on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/- for a period of six months by means of a rent note, dated 18th of June, 1965. The tenancy expired on 30th of November, 1965 and thereafter the tenant had been asked several times to vacate the premises. The landlord was a member of the armed forces of the Indian Union and was serving under war conditions and the house was required for occupation by his family. The refusal by the tenant to vacate the house had resulted in great hardship and inconvenience to the family of the landlord.

3. This application was contested by the tenant who pleaded that the house in dispute belonged to Devinder Singh, father of Major Gurmitinder Singh. It was he who had put Raj Kumar in possession of the house. The first receipt for rent that the tenant had with him was, however, issued by Sardarni Bhagwan Kaur, Mother of Devinder Singh. Thereafter, according to the tenant, Sardarni Bhagwan Kaur, Devinder Singh, Birinder Singh (brother of Major Gurmitinder Singh) and the Major himself had been dealing with him as landlords. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was, however, admitted. It was also admitted that the Major was in the army, but it was denied that he was serving under special or war conditions. The Majors father, according to the tenant, had settled at Patiala where they had a very big house. The Major was still joint with him. The allegation that the Major was married just three or four months back and required the house for the occupation by his family was not correct. Devinder Singh was interested in selling the house. A number of letters had been written by Birinder Singh to the tenant in that connection. The real purpose for getting the house vacated was to sell the same. The present application was, therefore, not bona fide.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, only one issue was framed in the case, namely, whether the respondent (tenant) was liable to be evicted on the grounds mentioned in paragraph Nos. 2 to 5 of the application. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have accepted the application and ordered the ejectment of the tenant. The tenant has, consequently, come here in revision. After discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent had recently married and he genuinely needed the house for the residence of his wife. The wife of the landlord had no independent accommodation for living and under those circumstances, the claim of the landlord for the eviction of the tenant was bona fide. The learned Judge has further found that in the beginning, the father of the respondent was the landlord, but subsequently it appeared that the house came to the share of the respondent in some family arrangement and that is why the tenant accepted him as landlord in June 1965. It was true that the brother of the respondent had corresponded with the tenant on behalf of the landlord in 1963 that he wanted to sell the house if a good offer was received, but the respondent became the landlord in 1965 and thereafter when he was going to get married, he wrote a letter, Exhibit P-5 to the tenant that the latter would have to vacate the house for the accommodation of his wife and that he did not want to sell the same. The certificate of the Commanding Officer to the effect that the respondent was serving under war conditions in the ar