The requirement of a landlord for the occupation of his residential building need not be immediate and existing on the very date when he moves the application for ejectment under Section 13(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether the requirement of a landlord for the occupation of his residential building must be immediate and existing on the very date when he moves the application u/s. 13 (3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, is the primary question that falls for determination in this case.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen in the wake of the recent enactment of the statute above-mentioned. Thereunder the powers of the Rent Controller u/s. 2(b) of the Act within the State of Haryana have now been conferred on the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, and under section 15, the appellate and the revisional powers have been conferred on the respective Deputy Commissioners and the Financial Commissioner.

3. Respondent No. 2 Hari Mohan Gauri at the material time was posted as the Deputy Director Administration, Central Hindi Directorate, Ministry of Education, New Delhi. In anticipation of his retirement (which took place with effect from the 13.10.1973) he moved an application on the 10.01.1972, u/s. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the writ petitioner from house No. 119-A, New Colony, Gurgaon. The application was resisted on behalf of the writ petitioner on various pleas. It appears that during the course of the proceedings the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act came into force on the 27.04.1973, and by virtue of Sec. 20A thereof the pending proceedings were transferred to the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, who exercised the powers of the Rent Controller. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed only two issues, the first being whether the answering respondent bona fide required the building in dispute for his own occupation and the second one being whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. No other issue was claimed during the course of the trial and no grouse about the framing of the issues was ever raised either before the appellate or the revisional authority.

4. Before the Controller, the parties led their respective evidence and on appraisal thereof he decided both the issues in favour of respondent No. 2 and consequently allowed his application for ejectment by a considered judgment dated the 19.03.1974. As already noticed, respondent No. 2 had in fact retired from service long before the date of this order of ejectment. An appeal was carried by the writ-petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, and as is evident from the order (annexure P.1) no challenge was raised against the finding on issue No. 1 regarding the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord for his personal occupation. Virtually the solitary challenge was on the point whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The Deputy Commissioner repelled the arguments raised on behalf of the writ petitioner and dismissed the appeal vide his order dated the 23rd of December, 1974. Aggrieved, the writ-petitioner moved a revision before the Financial Commissioner which also met the same fate vide order dated the 18th of June, 1975 (annexure P. 2). The present writ petition is directed against the orders above-said.

5. Mr. S.P. Goyal submits that on the 10.01.1972, when the application for ejectment was presented, respondent No. 2 was as yet continuing in service and was in occupation of Government accommodation and, therefore, did not immediately require the premises for his own use. Counsel contends that the respondent was merely anticipating a requirement in the future and until he actually retired, no right to seek ejectment accrued to him. The core of the argument indeed was that the requirement postulated by the statute must be a present and immediate requirement on the date of the application and further that the non-existence thereof would be fatal to the case of the landlord.

6. Inevitably a reference must first be made