Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1479 (PNJ)

Lila Dhar v. Dinesh Kumar

2014-11-03

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2014
Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. Grant of permission to the tenants to contest the petition, filed by the landlord under Section 13-A(1-A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 22.11.2013 of the Rent Controller, Hisar, forms the foundation of this petition. At the outset, for ready reference, Section 13-A(1-A) of the Act may be reproduced as below: "Where an application is made by a landlord who is or was an employee of Government of India or of Government of Haryana or of any State owned Board or Corporation of Haryana within one year prior to or after the date of his retirement or within one year from the date of commencement of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1990, whichever is later, on the ground mentioned in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 13, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section." 2. For appreciation of this provision in its correct context, it would be appropriate to append Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Act as under: "(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession - (a) in the case of a residential building, if, - (i) he requires it for his own occupation, is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1949 Act in the said urban area." 3. Perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that it is a special facility statutorily created in favour of Government officials retiring in near future to settle themselves in any business, profession or avocation by getting their property vacated which is hitherto in possession of the tenants. 4. In the present case, landlord has come with a definite stand that he was to retire on 30.11.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Additional Director, Food & Supplies Department, Haryana. It is a matter worth notice that the landlord is still in the corridors of the courts and the special statutory protection provided to him has not come to his rescue as yet. It is a matter worth notice that the landlord is still in the corridors of the courts and the special statutory protection provided to him has not come to his rescue as yet. The only plea which has heavily weighed with the Rent Controller in allowing permission to the tenant to contest the eviction is that Section 13-A of the Act applies only qua residential buildings and not for non-residential buildings from where after getting eviction of the respondents-tenants, an official after retirement wants to carry on the business. 5. This proposition propounded by the Rent Controller is not sustainable in law. No distinction can be drawn between residential and non-residential buildings for domain and sweep of provisions of Section 13-A of the Act. To restrict, provision of Section 13-A of the Act only to the residential buildings would not only atrophy the field of Section 13-A of the Act but also would scuttle the very purpose of enactment of this provision. 6. The distinction of residential and non-residential buildings brought for classification of buildings has been held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and now the provision equally applies to residential as also to non-residential buildings. Reference in this regard may be made to State of Haryana v. Ved Parkash Gupta and another, 1999 (1) Rent Law Reporter 689 (P&H); Dr. Madan Lal v. Rattan Singh,2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 203 (P&H); Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Union of India and another, 2008 (2) RCR Civil 805 (SC) and Harbilas Rai Bansal v. The State of Punjab and another, 1995 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 672 : 1996 (1) RLR 1 (SC). 7. In fact, reading of the application of the tenant seeking leave to defend the petition of eviction filed by the landlord against him, does not disclose any triable issue whereby participation of the tenant is required. The Rent Controller has dealt with the matter very casually and in a perfunctory manner. 8. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as mentioned earlier, it is a clear case where the learned Rent Controller has committed illegality in allowing the application of the respondents-tenants granting them leave to contest the petition. 9. The Rent Controller has dealt with the matter very casually and in a perfunctory manner. 8. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as mentioned earlier, it is a clear case where the learned Rent Controller has committed illegality in allowing the application of the respondents-tenants granting them leave to contest the petition. 9. Sequelly, accepting the present revision petition and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Rent Controller, the application filed by the respondents-tenants granting them leave to contest the petition, is dismissed. However, the Rent Controller would proceed further to decide the eviction petition within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.