Civil v. Bwinder Singh

39 AV Civil RevisionNo 237 of 2010 k4111 1 1 1 21 0 I N THE HI GHCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH 1 Civil Revision No 237 of 2010 Dat e of decisiot il 122010 1 C 0 0 Z C5 BalwinderSingh e et it ioner 1 SukhwinderKaur Versus espondent 1 2 Civil Revision No 238 of 2010 Z Bwinder Singh Oet it ioner I 08 r 7 Z Versus Sukhwinder Kaur espondent CORAMl HONBLE MR 1 JOSTI CESANAND 1 Present l Mr Am arj itMarkan Advocat e for t he pet it ioner 1 Mr PGhum an Advocat efor t he respondent 1 SDANAND J I t is com m on gr2undt hat t hese t wo pet it ionsm ust have com m onfat e on account of t he r involvingcom m on queSt ionOf I aw The has filecjt he presentpet it iont o obt ain a Rent Cont roller in allowance of t he ej ect m entact ioh init iat ed by t he 14 1 7 6 1 1 2 4 I l direct ed t he pet it ionerherein t o vaat e t he Prem ises 1 wit hin a periodof t hree m oiit t sfrom t he dat e of order I he respondent 1 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 t 1 Kum ar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 43 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh I andladyhad raised a pleal or evict ionon 1 1 an averm ent t hat she h8d 1 v e CAt 40 01 Civil RevisionNo 237 of 2010 2e t kRlc on 3042009 and requirest heprem isesfor own use and occupat ion Learnedcounsel appearingon behalfof t he argued t hatt he I earnedRent Cont roller act ed in l it lprOpriat em anner byignoringfrom t hefact um of dat e of t he fact t hat t he relevantcert iOcat ionabout had t o be of t he com pet entaut horit y At t ent ionOf t his Coun in of Sect ion 13A of t he sUppoitt hereof was invit edt owardst he provisions EastPunj abUrban 4 RentRest rict ionAct 1949 whichprovidet hat a pleafor evict ionbya ret iree has 10 be filed com pet entt o rem olim from service a cet ificat e om t he I n t he 1 t here can be nodisput ewit h t he fact t hat t he relevant cert ificat ionhadnot been issued by t he indicat edcom pet ent t hat as oect would seem t o have been rendered aut horit y VleW Cft he factt hat t he Since ret iredfrom s6rvice I t was held f 1 SohanLal Vs Ot t dmSinqh 100511LAR bya SingleBerich of t his Court in 336t hat wit h t he ret irem entof t he I andlord an enqUllYaboulwhet hert he hd been issued by 9 t he relevance The foll6WingobseI vat ionsm ade colnpet entt o re nove him fromservice ornot would I ose it s Court in t he relevant byt his 1 j behalfare ext ract edhereunde l 1 1 I t iS furt her pert irlentt o provest he fact t t at t he t hat cert ificat eExA4 am ply 1 1 had ret irl 1 n l 1r 0 0 C5 4 Z C I 08 12 7 Z m 311271996and t e pet it ionhad been hisret im ent I l C nce t he pet it ionerst ood ret iredt he enguiry f 1 1 e 71 1 1 5 f 1 1 Z l 11 1 l I el1 r 1e1 1 1 t l e111 7e 1 1 1 I J 11 1 I n 1 11 r 7 1 Kum ar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 43 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Whet her t he c com pet entt o 1 re m ove t he ificat e had been issuell n1 I n 1J1 1 I lOt hoolt y JOYTI RANI 1 1l 2016.03.28 16:22 1 4 1 44 I attest to the accuracy and i integrity of this document 7f t I r n 7 I l l V a1 1 t51 1 I ll 1 4 I l i l 91 I l 11 I o 1 1 1 6 n 1 1 06 6 I l 1 I l 1 17 7 4 I e e j t 1 1 1 1 Jr 9 vI 1 CivilRevisionNo 237 of 2010 1 e3m R1cRk would I ose it s The j udgm entof t his Court in t he case of Singh supral am plysupportt his view The t he Board at e t he em ployeesholding in connect ionwit h t he affairs of t he St at e and t heexpressionspeciOedI andlor as would be covered by definedin Sect ion 2hhlof t he Act The aforem ent ionedView also finds from t he j udgm entof t his Court in t he case of Fat eh Chand Verm a I supral Therefore t he Rent 1 Cont roller hascom m it t edan error by discardingt he ceniOcat e Ex1 t hat t he I andlordw evidence of t he fact 1 1 6 3 was a ret ired em ployeeand a speci6edI andlord Thatcet t it lcat e had concededlybeen issued 6y t he Dist rict and Un8ni Officer who is not com pet entt o rem ove t he a t rained m idewifefrom servicel However n t he I issuanceof t hat cert ificat eby 3naut horit ynot com pet entt o issue it ceases 1 t o have any I egalreI evance cr significancein view of t he Uncont rovert ed fact umof ret irem entbft he 1 No ot hetpointwa s raised I n t he I iht of foregoingdiscussiont he peit ion iS held t o be t denude8of m eritan8is ordert edt o be dism issed The I let it ionershall have t im 6frorilt odayt o I iacat e t he 1 t 1 2 1 6 1 1 7 1 t 1 t t i 7 6n7 1 14 1 1 4 1 1 1 7y 146n t 1 k 7 e 11 I l 4 1 e 1 r 1 11 1 7 5 6 I l 45 I lF 4 1f 9i r 1 e l 1 11 512 51 18 P 1 I 61 K 3 25n 7 I 7 0 2 I C5 1 e 08 Om I l 1 r 1 t f 5 0 1 16 t l 8 1 r k 4 11 5 71 1 5r 9e l Y i 1 1 4r May 12 2010 Ka e1e2oeke Kum ar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 43 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh 11 2 l e t 11 1 j l I l 1 1 1 1 5 1 5 DlASl j 1 1 21 l 1 1 r 1 1 1 I f 5 6n2 1 1 4 1 9 1n 1r JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document S 6 I l e 1 1 364 1 L1 01 15544 V