1. Landlord seeks eviction of tenant under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for building repairs directed by a local authority. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 112
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C.Shah : M.Hidayatullah : S.K.Das
Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh
Versus
Badri Prasad Seth
Case No. : 340 of 1959
Date of Decision : 3/20/62
Advocates Appeared: Andley S.N. : Nath Rameshwar : Sanyal H.N. : Setalvad M.C. : Shroff I.M. : Vohra P.L.
Important Points
Eviction for building work under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is only permissible if repairs are so extensive that the building must be vacated. Minor repairs do not justify eviction. Revision under Section 15(5) of the Act is broader than Section 115 CPC.
Subject
Property Law - Rent Control and Eviction
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: S.115
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT: S.15(5), S.13, S.25(5)
PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ACT: S.114, S.113, S.116
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT: S.15(5), S.13, S.25(5)
PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ACT: S.114, S.113, S.116
Headnote
(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13(3)(a)(iii) - Possession for building work - Interpretation of "requires" - Landlord is entitled to an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession only when the landlord "requires" the building to carry out building work - This provision is attracted only when the building work is so extensive and fundamental in character that it cannot be carried out if the tenant remains in possession - Minor repairs, such as white-washing or filling a gap in a doorway, do not fall within the scope of this section. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 15(5) - Scope of revision - The scope of sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act is wider than the scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is not confined to questions of jurisdiction only. (Paras 6, 7)
(C) Evidence - Consideration of subsequent events - In proceedings for possession, the court is open to take into consideration facts which come into existence after the filing of the application but before the date on which the order for vacation is to come into effect. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought possession of a building used as a cinema to carry out repairs to a pillar as directed by the local municipal authority. The tenant contested the application, arguing that the claim was not bona fide. The municipal authority eventually modified the repair requirement to a simple masonry filling of a doorway. Evidence presented during the proceedings showed that the repairs had already been satisfactorily completed by the tenant before the date the building was ordered to be vacated.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the repairs required were minor and could be easily carried out without the necessity of the tenant vacating the building. It was further noted that the repairs had already been completed, rendering the requirement for possession unnecessary.
Issues: Whether the landlord's need for repairs constituted a "requirement" for possession under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, and whether the High Court erred in applying the limited scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a revision application filed under Section 15(5) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The term "requires" in the context of eviction for building work implies that the work must be of such a fundamental nature that the building must be vacated. Minor repairs do not justify eviction. Additionally, the statutory power of revision under Section 15(5) of the Act is broader than the jurisdictional review provided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
(B) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 15(5) - Scope of revision - The scope of sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act is wider than the scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is not confined to questions of jurisdiction only. (Paras 6, 7)
(C) Evidence - Consideration of subsequent events - In proceedings for possession, the court is open to take into consideration facts which come into existence after the filing of the application but before the date on which the order for vacation is to come into effect. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought possession of a building used as a cinema to carry out repairs to a pillar as directed by the local municipal authority. The tenant contested the application, arguing that the claim was not bona fide. The municipal authority eventually modified the repair requirement to a simple masonry filling of a doorway. Evidence presented during the proceedings showed that the repairs had already been satisfactorily completed by the tenant before the date the building was ordered to be vacated.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the repairs required were minor and could be easily carried out without the necessity of the tenant vacating the building. It was further noted that the repairs had already been completed, rendering the requirement for possession unnecessary.
Issues: Whether the landlord's need for repairs constituted a "requirement" for possession under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, and whether the High Court erred in applying the limited scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a revision application filed under Section 15(5) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The term "requires" in the context of eviction for building work implies that the work must be of such a fundamental nature that the building must be vacated. Minor repairs do not justify eviction. Additionally, the statutory power of revision under Section 15(5) of the Act is broader than the jurisdictional review provided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
H.N.SANYAL, I.M.SHROFF, M.C.SETALVAD, P.L.VOHRA, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
H.N.SANYAL, I.M.SHROFF, M.C.SETALVAD, P.L.VOHRA, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
Table of Contents
2. Whether the landlord bona fide required possession for repairs and whether the High Court erred in applying the scope of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
3. The High Court misapplied the scope of Section 15(5) of the Act; however, the repairs were minor and did not necessitate the tenant vacating the premises. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Eviction for building work under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) requires that repairs be so extensive and fundamental that they cannot be performed while the tenant remains in possession. (Para 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 12 )
6. What is the difference between the scope of revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
The scope of Section 15(5) of the Act is wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it allows the High Court to examine the legality or propriety of an order, rather than being confined only to questions of jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. When is a landlord entitled to possession for building work under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act?
Possession is granted only when the landlord requires the building for repairs that are so extensive and fundamental in character that they cannot be carried out if the tenant remains in possession. Minor repairs, such as white-washing or filling gaps, do not justify eviction. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. Can a court consider facts that come into existence after an application for eviction has been filed?
Yes, the court may take into consideration facts existing at the time the order for vacation is to come into effect to determine if the landlord's claim for possession remains bona fide and necessary. (Para 11 )
S.K.DAS, J.
(1) THIS is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Punjab High Court dated May 21, 1958, in Civil Revision application No. 27 of 1958 of that Court. By that order the learned single Judge dismissed an application in revision made by the appellant herein in the following circumstances.
(2) THE appellant, Saharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh is the owner of the premises known as Kanzor Hall in Simla. The respondent, Badri Prasad Seth, is in occupation of the premises as a tenant and is running a. cinema therein which is known as Revoli theatre or Revolt cinema. The correspondence between the parties shows that on or about April 12, 1956 the Executive Engineer, Simla Provincial Division, inspected the cinema building on behalf of the Licensing Authority, namely. Deputy Commissioner, Simla, and noted six defects, one of which was, to use the words of the Executive Engineer, "the right hand pillar of the screen has cracked and has gone out of plumb." The existence of these defects was communicated to the respondent and also to the Muncipal Committee, Simla. The respondent in his turn communicated the existence of these defects to the appellant by a letter dated April 17, 1956. In that letter the respondent suggested to the appellant that the defect in the pillar should be removed before the beginning of June, 1956, when the rains were likely to commence. The respondent removed the other defects which were of a minor nature; but getting no reply from the appellant, he again wrote to him on September 17, 1956, and asked him to take early steps to repair the pillar to avoid any mishap. The respondent also intimated to the appellant that the cost of repairs to the pillar was likely to be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 5,000.00. The appellant took no action in the matter for some time. On September 24, 1956 the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. III of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was amended and a clause was inserted in s. 13(3)(a) thereof which entitled the landlord to apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession in the case of any building if he required it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if the building had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. On April 9, 1956, the appellant wrote to the President, Simla Municipal Committee, asking him to get the pillar in the Ranzor Hall inspected by the Executive Engineer in order to have his opinion whether the pillar was really in a dangerous condition and required any action on the part of the Municipal Committee under s. 116 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Punjab Act III of 1911).
(3) ON October 30, 1956, the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Simla, wrote to the respondent about the defect in respect of the right hand pillar of the screen and required the respondent by means of a notice to do the repairs within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. The Secretary issued the notice perporting to act under ss. 113 and 114 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. It appears that the Municipal Committee had the pillar inspected again in November, 1956, by the Executive Engineer, Simla Central Division. This time the Executive Engineer suggested that the two end walls (pillars) supporting the beams for the screen were cracked and therefore must be replaced by thicker walls. The Municipal Committee considered this report and came to the conclusion that as a precautionary measure what was necessary was to fill the doorway in the pillar with masonry so that the whole might become a solid block. On April 11, 1957, the Municipal Committee wrote to the appellant asking the latter to fill the doorway with masonry so that the whole pillar might become a solid block. This was in modification of the earlier
