A landlord can get possession of the tenanted premises under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act from one of the tenants if there are more.

A.L.Bahri, J.

1. Vide this order, two Civil Revision Petitions, (Nos.1260 and 1386 of 1989) are being disposed of. These petitions have been filed by the tenants against the landlady Smt. Zenobia Bhanot against orders of Rent Controllers, Chandigarh directing their ejectment from different portions of the same house.

2. The facts are brief and not disputed. Shri S. N. Bhanot, I. A. S. , died after his retirement from Government service. His widow Smt. Zenobia Bhanot filed applications under Sec.13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended, and applicable in the territory of Chandigarh, for ejectment of the present petitioners. These applications were filed on December 15,1987 but tried by different Rent Controllers Shri Birinder Singh. Rent Controller, Chandigarh decided the application filed against Dr. (Mrs ) S. K. Gill on January 27, 1989 directing her ejectment from two rooms of the house in dispute. Civil Revision No.1386 of 1980 has been filed against the said order. Shri G. S. Sewak, Rent Controller, Chandigarh on March 15, 1989 directed ejectment of Bhupinder Singh from one room of the house in dispute and Civil Revision No.1260 of 1989 has been filed against the said order. I have heard counsel ft r the parties.

3. The question debated has already been answered by J. V. Gupta, J. in Sohan Lal V/s. Col Prem Singh Grewal and Anr. , (1989-2) 96 P. L. R.139, holding therein that it is the choice of the landlord in an application under Sec.13-A of the Act to seek ejectment of the particular tenant. He could evict only one of the tenants and not all under the aforesaid provision as the tenants were occupying separate portions of the building indispute. That being the position, the choice of Smt. Zenobia Bhanot was asked for during arguments and learned counsel appearing on her behalf, though challenged the correctness of the decision in Sohan Lals case (supra), gave in the alternative the choice that the premises to be vacated by Dr. (Mrs.) S. K. Gill be delivered to the landlady.

4. Learned counsel for the landlady has argued that the interpretation placed by J. V. Gupta, J on the proviso added to Sec.13 A of the Act (as applicable in Punjab which is also applicable in Chandigarh) is not correct as the main Sec.13 A was not taken into consideration. There is no met it in this contention. On going through the proviso and Sec.13-A as a whole, I am also of the opinion that a landlord can get possession of the tenanted premises under the aforesaid provision from one of the tenants if there are more. The intention of the Legislature in enacting the provision is that the specified landlord should be in a position to get possession of the tetanted premises from his tenant immediately on his retirement. The question whether accommodation with the landlord after taking possession from one of the tenants is sufficient for his personal requirement or not is not to be gone into in such proceedings. On such grounds, the landlord has to take recourse to the provision of Sec.13 (3) of the main Act. Sec.13-A of the Act reads as under:-

" 13-A. Right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to accrue to certain persons--Where a specified landlord at any time, within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of execution of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment Act, 1985, whichever is later, applies to the Controller alongwith a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside to recover possession of his residential building or scheduled building, as the case may be, for his own occupation there shall accrue, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, notwithstanding