2002 Supreme(SC) 646

2002(4) Supreme 280
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
R.C. Lahoti and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Joginder Pal -Appellant
versus
Naval Kishore Behal -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3494 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13967 of 2001)
Decided on 10-5-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.B. Upadhyay, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Jasbir Malik, Advocate for S.K. Sabharwal, Advocate.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
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, literal or narrow construction. Thus the requirement of chartered accountant son of the landlord is relevant to direct eviction of the tenant from a non-residential building u/s. 13 (3) (a) (ii) of the said Act. Contrary view in Ravinder Kumar Pujara v. Gian Chand, AIR 1987 P & H 31 (DB) is overruled.

Headnote:East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949-Section 13(3)(a)(ii)-Eviction petition by landlord against tenant of non-residential building for his own use i.e. the same is required for the office of his son who is a Chartered Accountant residing with landlord-Dismissed by Rent Controller, but decreed by Appellate Authority which was confirmed in revision by High Court-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Correct meaning and scope of the words "for his own use"-Whether should be construed narrowly by literal interpretation or liberal by wide and useful interpretation? (the later)-Whether the requirement of Chartered Accountant son of the landlord relevant to direct eviction of the tenant u/s. 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act? (Yes)-Contrary view in AIR 1987 P&H 31 (DB) overruled case law and interpretation of status reviewed-Appeal dismissed.

       Held : The judicial opinion leans entirely in favour of assigning the expression his own requirement of the landlord a liberal, wide and useful - even an extended - meaning as that would advance the purpose of enacting the provision, discarding a narrow interpretation. We are of the opinion that the expression for his own use as occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(iii) 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 fulfill 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 interpreted 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 dependents 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 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 landlord. 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 inter-relation or identity nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the abovesaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord s 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. The landlord is not going to let out the premises to his son and though the son would run his office in the premises the possession would continue with the landlord and in a sense the actual occupation by the son would be the occupation by the landlord himself. It is the landlord who requires the premises for his son and in substance the user would be by landlord for his son s office. The case squarely falls within the scope of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. Ravinder Kumar Pujara s case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the tenant-appellant which holds that setting up of independent business of the son of the landlord is not covered by Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act takes too narrow a view of the provision; it does not lay down the correct law and is overruled. (Paras 22, 23 & 24)

       Held after review of case law and Interpretation of Statutes : 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 inter-relationship and inter-dependence - 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 landlord s 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 claim, as distinguished from a mere ruse to get rid of the tenant, will uphold the landlord s 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 landlord of the suit premises for user as office of his chartered accountant son is the requirement of landlord for his own use" within the meaning of Section 13(3)(a)(ii). (Para 32)

       Held finally : The appeal is dismissed. The tenant is allowed four months time to vacate the premises subject to his clearing all the arrears and filing the usual undertaking in the Executing Court to deliver vacant and peaceful possession over the suit premises to the landlord-respondent on expiry of the time allowed. Compliance in four weeks. (Para 33)