Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 367 (PNJ)

Krishan Lal v. Gurmit Kaur

2003-02-28

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity the Act) challenges concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below that the premises in dispute is liable to be handed over to the landlady-respondent because the necessity of her son has been established on record. It has been found that the son of the landlady-respondent, who is a photographer wishes to start business of photography and he has got training of photography business. It has further been held that the landlady-respondent has got no other shop in her possession in the concerned urban area, where the shop is situated. No mala fide has been attributed to the claim made by the landlady-respondent. 2. Mr. Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(iv) do not contemplate the eviction of a tenant from the rental premises unless it is shown that the residential building is required by the landlord for his son to be used as an office/consulting room to start his practice as a lawyer or a registered medical practitioner. According to the learned counsel, the personal necessity of the landlady should be confined to the grounds specified by Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramkubai since deceased by LRs. v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak, 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 213 SC : 1999(6) SCC 540. The learned counsel has argued that the Supreme Court has taken the view that son of the landlady wanted to establish Karyana business in the rented shop which was a ground specified under Section 3(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. He has also placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the case of The Ferozepur Cooperative Printing & Publishing Society Ltd. v. Roshan Lal and another, 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 229 (P&H) : 2000(3) PLR 277 and Ravinder Kumar v. Gian Chand, 1986(2) RCR(Rent) 333 (P&H) : AIR 1987 P&H 31. According to the learned counsel if the ratio of these judgments are applied to the facts of the present case, the son of the landlady-respondent being a photographer is not covered by the afore-mentioned provision. According to the learned counsel if the ratio of these judgments are applied to the facts of the present case, the son of the landlady-respondent being a photographer is not covered by the afore-mentioned provision. The learned counsel urged that the intention of the legislature should be given full effect by confining the eviction to the necessity of a son who is lawyer or registered medical practitioner. 3. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and do not feel persuaded to accept the same. It would be appropriate to make a reference to the provisions of Section 13(3)(a) as it stood before the amendment incorporated by Punjab Act No. 29 of 1956 which reads as under : "13. Eviction of Tenant. - (1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section (or in pursuance of an order made under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947 as subsequently amended). (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied" 3.(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession; i) in the case of a residential or scheduled building, if - a) he requires it for his own occupation : b) he is not occupying another residential or scheduled building, as the case may be in the urban area concerned; and c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the said urban area. xx xx xx xxx xx (ii) In the case of non-residential building or rented land, if - a) he requires it for his own use; b) he is not occupying in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land as the case may be; and c) he has not vacated such a building or rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned; iii) in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or dervelopment scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation; iv) in the case of any building, if he requires it for use as an office, or consulting room by his son who tends to start practice as a lawyer or as a "registered practitioner" within the meaning of that expression as used in the Punjab Medical Registration Act, 1961 or for the residence of his son who is married, if - a) his son as aforesaid is not occupying in the urban area concerned any other building for use as office, consulting room or residence, as the case may be; and b) his son as aforesaid has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned;" 4. A perusal of the above Section would show that a landlord is within his right to make an application to the Rent Controller for eviction of his tenant in respect of a residential or scheduled building if he requires it for his own occupation subject to fulfilling other conditions. It is further evident from the perusal of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act that in case of non- residential building or rented land such an application can be filed if the non-residential building or rented land is required by the landlord for his own use subject to certain conditions. It is further evident from the perusal of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act that in case of non- residential building or rented land such an application can be filed if the non-residential building or rented land is required by the landlord for his own use subject to certain conditions. Similarly, Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act also shows that even in respect of any building as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act the eviction application could be filed by the landlord on the ground that such a building is required to be used as an office or consultation room by the son of the landlord who is a lawyer or registered medical practitioner. 5. The provisions of Punjab Act No. 29 of 1956 Act incorporating the amendment in the afore-mentioned Section 13 have not been quoted for the reason that the amendment itself has been held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in the case of Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab, 1995(2) RCR(Rent) 672 (SC) : (1996) 1 SCC 1. Therefore the distinction created by Punjab Act No. 29 of 1956 between the `residential and `non-residential premises for the purposes of setting up the plea of personal necessity has come to an end. In other words, the landlord can now set up plea of personal necessity under Section 13(3)(a)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Act. The provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Pal v. Nawal Kishore Behal, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 582 (SC) : (2002) 5 SCC 397. In that case the landlord had ejectment petition against the tenant for recovering possession of non- residential building claiming that the same was required for the office of his son who was Chartered Accountant and reliance was placed on the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. Interpreting the expression used in the afore-mentioned provision "his own use" and accepting wide and liberal interpretation, their Lordships held as under : "We are of the opinion that the expression "for his own use" as occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act cannot be narrowly construed. The expression must be assigned a wider, liberal and practical meaning. The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to fulfil the requirement he must himself physically occupy the premises. The expression must be assigned a wider, liberal and practical meaning. The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to fulfil the requirement he must himself physically occupy the premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use. In the several decided cases referred to hereinabove, we have found the pari materia provisions being interpreting so as to include the requirement of the wife, husband, sister, children including son, daughter, a widowed daughter and her son, nephew, coparceners, members of family and dependants and kith and kin in the requirement of landlord as "his" or "his own" requirement and user. Keeping in view the social or socio- religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be the obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the land. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire: (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close interrelation or identity nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the above said tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlords son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent......." "Our conclusions are crystalised as under : i) The words "for his own use" as occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 must receive a wide, liberal and useful meaning rather than a strict or narrow construction. ii) The expression - landlord requires for "his own use", is not confined in its meaning to actual physical user by the landlord personally. The requirement not only of the landlord himself but also of the normal "emanations" of the landlord is included therein. All the cases and circumstances in which actual physical occupation or user by someone else, would amount to occupation or user by the landlord himself, cannot be exhaustively enumerated, it will depend on a variety of factors such as interrelationship and interdependence - economic or otherwise, between the landlord and such person in the background of social, socio-religious and local customs and obligations of the society or region to which they belong. iii) The tests to be applied are: (i) whether the requirement pleaded and proved may properly be regarded as the landlords own requirement; and (ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case, actual occupation and user by a person other than the landlord would be deemed by the landlord as "his own" occupation or user. The answer would, in its turn. depend on (i) the nature and degree of relationship and/or dependence between the landlord pleading the requirement as "his own" and the person who would actually use the premises; (ii) the circumstances in which the claim arises and is put forward; and (iii) the intrinsic tenability of the claim. The court on being satisfied of the reasonability and genuineness of the claim, as distinguished from a mere ruse to get rid of the tenant, will uphold the landlords claim. iv) While casting its judicial verdict, the court shall adopt a practical and meaningful approach guided by the realities of life. v) In the present case, the requirement of the landlord of the suit premises for user as office of his chartered accountant son is the requirement of the landlord "for his own use" within the meaning of Section 13(3)(a)(ii)." 6. When the principles enunciated in Joginder Pals case (supra) are applied to the facts of the present case it is evident that the landlady-respondent has established on record that the premises in dispute are bona fide required for the use and occupation of her son who has to start photography business at Phillaur and that her son has got no other suitable accommodation in the afore-mentioned urban area. The judgment in Joginder Pals case (supra) has been rightly relied upon by the learned Appellate Authority. Therefore, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order of ejectment passed by both the Courts below and the same is upheld. 7. The Division Bench judgment in the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel would not require any detailed consideration for the reason that the amendment added vide Punjab Act No. 29 of 1956 have been held to be ultra vires in Harbilas Rai Bansals case (supra) and moreover, the judgment has proceeded on the basis that there was no evidence or even the pleading that the son who required the premises for setting up his independent business was not shown to be a member of the family of the landlord or dependent upon him. Moreover, the provisions of Section 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Act as it stood at that time would cover the non-residential building for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. Similarly the judgment in the case of Roshan Lal (supra) does not advance the case of the tenant-petitioner because the contention of the landlady-respondent under Section 13(3)(a)(i) was upheld. Therefore, I have no hesitation in rejecting the submission made by the learned counsel that the ground of personal necessity of the landlady- respondent given in respect of any building should be confined only in respect of a son who require the same for use as an office, consulting room as a lawyer or registered medical practitioner. The case of the landlady- respondent would be fully covered by the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.