Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Padam Nabh & Sons - Appellants
Versus
Yash Pal - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.5976 of 2014
Decided On : 17-11-2021
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Section 13-B – Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Section 14-B – Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 – Section 13-B –Delhi Police Act, 1978 – Section 3 –Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106(1) – Appeal – Tenanted premises for establishing a departmental – Rent Controller – Whether a Non-Resident Indian who purchases a building to which Act applies, subsequent to induction of tenant, will be entitled to invoke summary jurisdiction under Sub-section (1) of Section 13-B or not – Held, Court must also keep in mind distinction between (i) inception of tenancy or induction of a person as a tenant; and (ii) letting out a premises on lease. Section 13-B(1) does not use expression “inducted by him or her” – If these words had been used, they would certainly refer to inception of tenancy – Section 13(B)(1) uses expression “let out” – Section 106(1) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 declares that a leasing of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year (in absence of a contract or local law or usage to contrary) – Therefore, if a NRI becomes owner of the building to which Act applies and tenancy of a person in occupation is attorned in his favour, premises would become a premises let out by him, as otherwise jural relationship of landlord and tenant will not come into existence – Once a NRI acquires a premises which is in occupation of a tenant inducted by his predecessor in title, he becomes owner – Moment the tenancy is attorned in his favour, then jural relationship of tenant landlord is created and premises become one let out by him – It is perhaps with a view to highlight this aspect that legislature has carefully used expression “owner” in Section 13-B, even while using the expression “landlord” in other places – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. This appeal arising out of an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Nawanshahr, under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and confirmed on revision by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, raises an interesting question as to whether a Non-Resident Indian who purchases a building to which the Act applies, subsequent to the induction of the tenant, will be entitled to invoke the summary jurisdiction under Sub-section (1) of Section 13-B or not.
2. We have heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pardeep Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Admittedly one Shri Padam Nabh, who was the father of the proprietor/partner of the appellant-concern, was inducted as a tenant in respect of a non residential building measuring about 12’ x 12’, situate at the Old Grain Market Nawanshahar. The induction of Shri Padam Nabh as a tenant, was by one Sat Prakash.
4. Claiming (i) that the original owner Sat Prakash sold the premises in question to his father Brij Lal under a sale deed dated 6.2.1989; (ii) that the property devolved upon him and his brother after the demise of his father in the year 1991 through testamentary succession; (iii) that he went to Australia in March-1996 and returned to India on 4.02.2004; and (iv) that he required the tenanted premises for establishing a departmental store, the respondent filed a petition for eviction under Section 13-B of the Act. The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller by an Order dated 19.01.2010.
5. Challenging the order of the eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, the appellant filed a revision before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The revision having been dismissed by the High Court, the tenant is on appeal before us.
6. The main contention of Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the issue raised by the appellant is no longer res integra, but covered by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271. However, the High Court, in the impugned order, chose to follow the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Smt. Bachan Kaur vs. Kabal Singh, 2011(1) RCR (Rent) 368, which distinguished the Constitution Bench Judgment in Nathi Devi (supra). Therefore, it is contended by Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel that the impugned order of the High Court requires to be interfered with, by this Court, in the light of the law declared by the Constitution Bench while interpreting an identical provision in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short “Delhi Act”).
7. Since Nathi Devi (supra) was concerned with the interpretation of Section 14-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and since we are concerned in this case with the interpretation of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, we think it would be appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of both the enactments in a tabular column for better appreciation.
| Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 | East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 |
| 14-B. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to members of the armed forces, etc. (1) Where the landlord - (a) is a released or retired person from any armed forces and the premises let out by him are required for his own residence; or (b) is a dependent of a member of any armed forces who had been killed in action and the premises let out by such member are required for the residence of the family of such member, such person or, as the case may be, the dependent may, within one year from the date of his release or retirement from such armed forces or, as the case may be, the date of death of such member, or within a peri |
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
