1. Eviction petition under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act based on landlord's need for orphaned niece and nephew. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 1243
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Brijesh Kumar : R.C.Lahoti
Rajinder Dhada
Versus
Jagjit Singh
Case No. : 670 of 2001
Date of Decision : 9/6/01
To seek eviction based on the needs of family members, the landlord must prove those members satisfy the statutory definition of "family," requiring them to both ordinarily reside with the landlord and be dependent upon them.
Headnote:(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) - Eviction of tenant - Bona fide requirement for own occupation - Explanation-2 to Section 13(3) - Definition of "family" - Requirement of landlord to prove that relations ordinarily live with and are dependent upon them - Where children of deceased sister-in-law were neither residing with nor dependent upon landlady, their requirement cannot be considered for eviction under the Act. (Paras 2, 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
A landlady sought eviction of a tenant on the grounds of bona fide requirement to accommodate the children of her deceased sister-in-law. While the landlady resided in allotted quarters, it was found that one child resided with another relative and the other resided in a hostel for studies.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the children were neither dependent on the landlady nor ordinarily residing with her; thus, they did not fall within the definition of "family" under the Act.
Issues: Whether the requirement of children of a deceased sister-in-law, who are not ordinarily residing with or dependent on the landlord, constitutes a valid ground for eviction under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Pursuant to Explanation-2 to Section 13(3) of the Act, "family" is limited to relations who ordinarily live with the landlord and are dependent upon them. Absence of such residency and dependency precludes the use of such relations' requirements as a ground for eviction unless the landlord has an independent bona fide desire to shift to their own premises. (Paras 3 and 4)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Landlady argued children of deceased sister-in-law were family; tenant disputed dependency and ordinary residence. (Para 2 )
3. High Court found children neither dependent on nor ordinarily living with landlady; requirement not germane to eviction ground. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
4. For eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a), relatives must be dependent on and ordinarily live with landlord to be family. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed; eviction petition dismissed as devoid of merit without costs. (Para 5 )
6. What relatives qualify as 'family' of a landlord for eviction under rent control laws?
Relatives who ordinarily live with the landlord and are dependent upon him, as defined in Explanation 2 to Section 13(3) of the Act. (Para 3 )
7. Can a landlord seek eviction based on need for relatives who do not reside with or depend on them?
No, the requirement of such relatives is not germane to the ground for eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a). (Para 2 , 4 )
JUDGMENT
R.C.LAHOTI, J.
(1) A petition seeking eviction of tenant on a ground available under section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter the Act, for short) succeeded before the rent controller who passed an order of eviction. The order was maintained by the appellate authority who dismissed the tenants appeal. In a revision preferred by the tenant under section 15(5) of the Act, the High Court had set aside the order of eviction and directed the eviction petition to be dismissed. The aggrieved landlady has come up in appeal by special leave.
(2) THE ownership of the landlady over the premises and their occupation by the respondent in the capacity of a tenant, is not disputed. The requirement, as alleged in the pleadings and as was found by the rent controller, is that the landlady is a nurse, presently in occupation of a quarter allotted to her in the hospital where she is serving. There she is residing with her husband and two children. Smt. Bir Kaur was the landladys husbands sister, who, unfortunately died of cancer. She has left behind two children, a son aged about 13 years and a daughter aged about 4 years. The sister-in-laws husband is an ASI in police and is alive. As there was no other family member in the family of deceased sister-in-law, the children were required to stay with the landlady and the accommodation, presently in occupation of the landlady was not enough to meet the requirement of such enlarged family. However, the High Court found from evidence, that out of the two children left by the sister-in-law of the land lady, the daughter was residing with another sister-in-law and the son was lodged in a hostel in a different city where he was prosecuting his studies. The High Court found that neither the children were dependent on the landlady nor were they ordinarily residing with her so as to be treated as members of her family. In the opinion of the High Court, the requirement of such children of deceased sister-in-law of the landlady was not germane to the ground under section 13(3)(a)(i)(a)of the Act.
(3) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no fault can be found with the view taken by the High Court. The relevant provision permits the tenant being directed to put the landlord in possession of the tenancy premises, if he requires it for his own occupation. Such a requirement has to be bona fide. Explanation - 2, incorporated in sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act defines "family" to mean such relations of the landlord as ordinarily live with him and are dependent upon him etc. The definition is suggestive of legislative intent.
(4) THE High Court has, from the material available on record, found the two children, whose requirement was intended to be satisfied by the landlady by evicting the tenant, to be neither dependent on, nor ordinarily living with, the landlady. It is not the case of the landlady that dehors the requirement of the two children abovesaid, the landlady still wanted to quit the accommodation in her occupation in the hospital and bonafidely desired to shift to her own premises.
(5) IN such and circumstances, no fault can be found with the decision of the High Court allowing the revision and directing the eviction petition to be dismissed. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed though without any order as to costs.
