Back
2002 Supreme(SC) 202
2002(1) Supreme 589
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Variava, JJ.
Shabir Ahmad -Appellant
versus
Sham Lal and Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1605 of 1999
Decided on 8-2-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, P.N. Puri, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Manoj Swarup and Manish Khandelwal, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Respondents are not entitled to seek eviction of the appellants from a shop-cum-flat used for general trade u/s. 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for bonafide requirement for residential purpose.
Headnote:East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as extended to Chandigarh) -Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a)-Eviction petition on ground of bona fide need of the respondent for residential purpose-A shop-cum-flat and using the same for general trade (for restaurant i.e. shop portion)-The Courts below and High Court held the premises is a residential building-Whether proper? (No)-Whether the respondents are entitled to seek eviction of the appellant u/s. 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act? (No)-Appeal allowed-(Cross Ref. Sections 2(g), 2(d) and 11). (Paras 8 to 16)
Held : The courts below as well as the High Court having regard to the meaning of the word flat in that expression treated the ground floor as a shop and the first floor as a flat and on that basis held that the premises is a residential building. In our view, the approach in interpreting the expression shop-cum-flat having regard to the dictionary meaning of the word flat is not proper. (Para 8)
From these recitals, in the deed of conveyance, the letter of allotment of the site, the plan and the agreement of tenancy it is evident that shop-cum-flat is a non-residential building within the meaning of the Act and we have absolutely no doubt that the premises is a part of a non-residential building and in view of the embargo, noticed above, cannot be used for residential purposes. The High Court was, therefore, not correct to construe the word flat in the expression shop-cum flat out of context with reference to the dictionary meaning of the word. (Para 16)
For the above reasons, the order of the High Court under challenge cannot be sustained; it is accordingly set aside. The eviction petition filed by the respondents is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and dismiss the application of the respondents for eviction of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. (Para 19)
JUDGMENT
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Revision No. 872 of 1996 dated May 28, 1998. By that order the High Court upheld the judgment of the Appellate Authority in R.A.No.206 of 20.5.94 dated February 3, 1996 confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller dated April 6,1994.
2. The appellant is the tenant of a portion of the first floor of shop-cum-flat , S.C.F. No. 14, Sector 22, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the premises ) of which the respondents are the landlords. The relationship between the appellant and the respondents is governed by the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which was extended to Chandigarh by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 and subsequently amended by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Chandigarh Amendment) Act, 1982 (for short the Act ).
3. The respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on two grounds but what survives for consideration is the ground of bona fide requirement of the respondents for residential purposes, under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act. The appellant contested the eviction petition, inter alia, on the ground that the premises let out to him is a non-residential building and, therefore, his eviction cannot be sought under the said provision. The learned Rent Controller found the ground of bona fide requirement in favour of the respondents and recorded the finding that the premises is a part of a residential building. Accordingly, it ordered eviction of the appellant by its order dated April 6, 1994. The appellant s appeal before the Appellate Authority having been dismissed on February 3, 1996, he filed Civil Revision No.872 of 1996 in the High Court which was also dismissed by an order dated May 28, 1998 in terms of the judgment in Civil Revision No, 1085 of 1995. That order of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Mr. V.C. Mahajan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the courts below recorded an erroneous finding that the premises which is a part of shop-cum-flat , is a residential building. He argued that the letter of allotment, the conveyance deed and the plan would clearly show that the building was a non-residential building, as such the eviction petition ought to have been dismissed by all the courts. Mr. Manoj Swarup, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, relying on the same documents has submitted that the first floor of the shop-cum-flat is a residential building and this is evident from the fact that it is termed as shop-cum-flat; the learned Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority as well as the High Court rightly held the premises to be a residential building.
5. The short question that arises for consideration is : whether the respondents are entitled to seek eviction of the appellant under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act.
6. Inasmuch as the respondents petition was filed under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act it would be appropriate to quote it here:
"13. Eviction of tenants-
(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 {* * *} building if-
(a) he requires it for his own occupation;
(b) to (d) *** *** *** ***
Proviso *** *** *** ***.
7. A plain reading of the provision shows that a landlord is enabled to apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession in case of a residential building if he requires it for his own occupation. It is manifest that the aforementioned provision can be invoked only in case of a residential building. The controversy in this case centers round the question, whether the premises is a residential building. The ground floor is admittedly a shop portion. Th
