Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 560
2006(5) Supreme 183
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir, JJ.
Umed Singh — Appellant
versus
Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6495 of 2005
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6496 & 6497 of 2005
Decided on 4-7-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Raj Kumar Gupta, Sheo Kumar Gupta, Bhanu Pratap Gupta, A.N. Bardiyar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Gagan Gupta, Ranjay Kumar, B.K. Satija, Advocates.
For the Appellant :Raj Kumar Gupta, Sheo Kumar Gupta, Bhanu Pratap Gupta, A.N. Bardiyar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Gagan Gupta, Ranjay Kumar, B.K. Satija, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Expression “own occupation” in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) and Eviction Act also connotes use of premises for non-commercial purposes i.e. purpose unconnected with business or trade.
Headnote:Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) and Eviction Act, 1973 — Section 13(3) (a)(i) — Eviction petition filed by respondent on ground of bona fide requirement for starting a library in suit premises, a residential building — Suit was decreed by Rent Controller — Appellate Authority upheld the order and High Court dismissed revision — Appeal — Question whether Sub-clause (i) made it obligatory on part of landlord to use premises purely for residential purposes only? No — Whether expression “own occupation” also connotes use of premises for non-commercial purposes i.e. for purposes unconnected with business or trade? Yes.
Held : There is no ambiguity that the provisions referred to are to be considered in the case of a residential building. In other words, we will have to consider whether Sub-clause (i) makes it obligatory on the part of the landlord to use the premises purely for residential purposes only or whether the expression "own occupation" also connotes use of the premises for non-commercial purposes, i.e. for purposes unconnected with business or trade. The respondent-society intends to use the premises in question for running a public library without any profit which would bring the same within the ambit of non-commercial use. The Full Bench of the High Court was, therefore, fully justified in arriving at the conclusion that the suit premises would be covered by the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the aforesaid Act. The respondent being a society, cannot have any residential requirement in respect of a premises and its activities will have to determine the nature of its use of a premises. A juristic person cannot have need of residence but may use a premises for non-commercial purposes. Since the society intends to use the premises for itself for a non-commercial purpose, unconnected with any business or trade, it must, in our view, come within the ambit of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act and more particularly so having regard to Clause (ii) which contemplates use of the residential premises even for purposes such as a consulting room for a lawyer or other professionals. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the reasoning of the Full Bench while considering the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act and, in our view, the appeals before us are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. (Paras 12 to 14)
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J. — The appellant, Umed Singh, was inducted as a tenant of the suit premises by one Sewa Ram at a monthly rent of Rs.100/- for residential purposes. One Mohan Lal was also a tenant of a portion of the building. The said Sewa Ram executed a Will in favour of the respondent-society, Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan, on 15th March, 1984. Soon thereafter, on 5th June, 1984, Sewa Ram died.
2. On 25th March, 1994, the respondent filed ejectment suit against the appellant herein under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973 (hereafter referred to as the Act) for non-payment of rent from 1st December, 1989 to 31st March, 1994 and also on the ground of bona fide requirement for starting a library in the suit premises. It may be indicated that the respondent-society also filed a suit against the other tenant, Mohan Lal, but the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that running of a library could not be equated with the expression "use or occupation by the landlord for purposes of residence". An appeal preferred by the society against Mohan Lal was allowed and the judgment of the trial court was set aside. Ultimately, however, the High Court set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and restored the decision of the Rent Controller.
3. In the meantime, by its judgment and order dated 31st January, 2000, the Rent Controller decreed the eviction petition filed by the society against Umed Singh on the ground of bona fide requirement and an appeal preferred therefrom by Umed Singh was dismissed by the appellate authority on 24th August, 2000. Umed Singh filed a Revision Petition before the High Court on 7th November, 2000 against the said judgment of the appellate authority dated 24th August, 2000. The said Revision Petition was dismissed by the High Court on 22nd November, 2000. Subsequently, having regard to the decision of the High Court in the case of Mohan Lal, the other tenant, whereby the societys eviction petition had been dismissed, Umed Singh filed a Review Petition before the High Court on 21st December, 2000 relying on the decision in Mohan Lals case. In view of the High Courts decision in Mohan Lals case, the order dated 22nd November, 2000 dismissing Umed Singhs Revision Petition was recalled and upon further consideration of the provisions of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act and its different interpretations by two Division Benches of the expression "for his own use and occupation" as used in the said section, the learned Judge referred the matter to the Chief Justice for the following question to be examined by a larger Bench, namely,
"Whether his own occupation and the residential purpose in relation to a corporate body/juristic person can be read in wider perspective or in stricto senso of the dictionary meaning?"
4. The aforesaid reference was placed before the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which considered the question referred to it in great detail in its judgment dated 23rd August, 2002, in the context of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. While considering the Reference, the attention of the Full Bench was drawn to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Mohan Lals case in C.R.No.1217/2000, wherein reference was made to a decision of this Court in the case of Attar Singh vs. Inder Kumar, reported in (1967) 2 SCR 50, which was a decision rendered under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Restrictions Act, No.III of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1949 Act"). The learned Single Judge relied on the finding in the said decision that as the respondent-landlord required the land not for business or trade but only for constructing a house for himself, he was not entitled to eject the appellant under Section 13 (3) (a) (ii) of the 1949 Act from the rented land. After considering the decision of this Court in the aforesaid case, the Full Bench made a distinction between the
