Back
1993 Supreme(HP) 139
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
DEVINDER GUPTA
B.N.GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
GANGA RAM - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 191 of 1992
Decided On : 09/08/1993
For the petitioner(s):Mr. K. D. Sood, Advocate. For the respondent(s):Mr. G. C. Gupta. Advocate.
Suitability and sufficiency are not synonymous. Suitability is to be seen from the viewpoint of the landlord in the light of his intention to settle down at a place or to start a business or to reside there after retirement and start business. Suitability cannot be construed to mean sufficiency. A landlord already in occupation of a residential building within the local area cannot seek tenant's eviction under section 15(2) of the Act.
Headnote:
LANDLORD TENANT - EVICTION - SUITABILITY OF ACCOMMODATION - SUITABILITY AND SUFFICIENCY ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS - SUITABILITY IS TO BE SEEN FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE LANDLORD IN THE LIGHT OF HIS INTENTION TO SETTLE DOWN AT A PLACE OR TO START A BUSINESS OR TO RESIDE THERE AFTER RETIREMENT AND START BUSINESS - SUITABILITY CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN SUFFICIENCY - LANDLORD ALREADY IN OCCUPATION OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITHIN THE LOCAL AREA CANNOT SEEK TENANT'S EVICTION UNDER SECTION 15(2) OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner-landlord filed a petition under section 15(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Act No. 25 of 1987) seeking eviction of tenant-respondent from the upper flat of a building in Shimla. The petitioner alleged that he was due to retire from the post of State Vocational Guidance Officer and was entitled to seek respondent's eviction since the premises in question were the only suitable accommodation available to him for his residence after retirement. The respondent denied the allegations and claimed that the petitioner had in the recent past got spacious residential sets vacated on the ground of his personal bona fide use and occupation, and that the accommodation in the petitioner's occupation was more than sufficient. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was already in occupation of a residential set in the ground floor and was not entitled to get possession of the premises in occupation of the tenant under section 15(2) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner was already in occupation of a residential set in the ground floor of the building and was not entitled to get possession of the premises in occupation of the tenant under section 15(2) of the Act. The Court further held that the words 'suitable accommodation' cannot be read to mean 'sufficient accommodation', and that in case the ground is made out that accommodation available is not sufficient, the landlord has to seek tenant's eviction under section 14(3) of the Act and not under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is a specified landlord and he is entitled to get possession of the premises in dispute, as prayed? 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? 3. Whether the petition is mala fide? 3-A. Whether the petition is pre-mature, as alleged?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right conferred under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 15 is to recover immediate possession, in certain eventualities, namely when the landlord is asked to either vacate or to incur liability to pay a penal rent or when he is faced with a situation that after retirement at a place where he has to start business or where he intends to reside he has no other accommodation available to him for his residence. 2. The second proviso to section 15 has to be read in such a manner so as to harmonise the provisions contained in sub-section (2), which says that it shall not be construed as conferring a right to any person to recover possession of more than one residential building. 3. In case a landlord happens to be in occupation of a residential building within the local area concerned, owned and possessed by him or his spouse, it cannot be construed that under section 15(2), a right has been conferred on him to seek tenant's eviction from one more additional residential set in the garb of fulfilling his intention that he intends to reside therein. 4. The right conferred under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 15 is to recover immediate possession, in certain eventualities, namely when the landlord is asked to either vacate or to incur liability to pay a penal rent or when he is faced with a situation that after retirement at a place where he has to start business or where he intends to reside he has no other accommodation available to him for his residence. 5. This right conferred cannot mean that though he is already in occupation of a residential accommodation owned by him or his wife but the same is not adequate for his requirement since he wants to have more accommodation for his residence. 6. In that eventuality, the legislature has provided general right to a landlord under section 14(3) of the Act, where a landlord has to allege and prove that he requires the residential accommodation for his own occupation; he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him and has not vacated such a building within the last five years of the filing of the petition for eviction. 7. While considering his claim, the Controller has to satisfy himself about the bona fides of the claim. 8. In a case where the landlord is already in occupation of a residential building either owned by him or by his spouse within the local area he cannot, in view of the second proviso of section 15 be said to have acquired any right to seek tenant's eviction and on that ground the eviction petition will not be maintainable. 9. In such like situations, the claim of landlord in seeking additional accommodation over and above the accommodation already occupied by him within the urban area where he or his spouse possess any other accommodation would not be a bona fide act. 10. The fact that there is no reference to the word bona fide requirement in sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act does not absolve the specified landlord from proving that his claim for accommodation is bona fide or the tenant from showing or urging that it is not bona fide. 11. It is absolutely necessary and otherwise also appears to be appropriate and reasonable that every claim for eviction against a tenant must be a bona fide one. 12. Having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of statute in which the said provision is enacted, the Court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. 13. An attempt must always be made so as to reconcile the relevant provisions and to advance the remedy intended by the statute. 14. The word suitable accommodation cannot be read to mean sufficient accommodation, in case ground is made out that accommodation available is not sufficient. 15. In that case, the landlord has to seek tenant's eviction under section 14(3) of the Act and not under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act, in view of the second proviso, which postulates within it the requirement that a specified landlord cannot recover possession of more than one residential building.
Final Decision: Revision petition dismissed.
Devinder Gupta, J.—The petitioner-landlord has come up in revision under section 16(8) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Act No. 25 of 1987) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order passed by the Rent Controller (4), Shimla on 14th August, 1992 dismissing his petition seeking eviction of tenant-respondent under subsection (2) of section 15 of the Act.
2. On 21st August, 1990, a petition under sub-section (2) of section 15 was filed by the petitioner seeking tenants eviction from the upper flat No 27/1, Boileauganj, Shimla, comprising three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine and a glazed verandah. It was alleged that the petitioner was due to retire from the post of State Vocational Guidance Officer in the Labour and Employment Directorate of the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 31st July, 1991. The petitioner being a specified landlord within the meaning of word as defined in section 2 (i) of the Act, was entitled to seek respondents eviction since the premises in question are the only suitable accommodation available to him for his residence after retirement. It was alleged that the petitioner was already in occupation of one room, kitchen, verandah, bath and latrine in the ground floor of the building in question. In addition to it, there was one shop attached to the set occupied by him. where his wife Pritama Gupta was running a type-writing training centre. His family consists of himself, his wife and one son, who was also posted as Refractionist in the Rural Health Centre at Arki and was staying with him. The two married daughters keep on visiting him alongwith other family members. As such, the accommodation with him was wholly inadequate. The son of the petitioner is of marriageable age. The petitioner and his wife were not owning and possessing any other suitable accommodation within Shimla, where he wanted to reside and start his business after retirement. It was alleged that the petitioner had not taken or come in possession of any other accommodation within the last five years of the filing of this petition.
3. On putting an appearance, the respondent sought leave of the Court to contest the eviction petition by filing an application supported with his affidavit. The requisite leave to contest was granted to the respondent by the Rent Controller on 24th October, 1990. Number of grounds were taken by the respondent in reply, filed in answer to the eviction petition. It was alleged that the petitioner had in the recent past got spacious residential sets vacated on the ground of his personal bona fide use and occupation, which fact had been suppressed in the eviction petition. The petitioner came in possession of a vacant spacious set in the ground floor of the building, initial rent whereof was Rs. 13 per month. The same had been thereafter let out to one Shri P. N. Kambhoj on a rental of Rs. 500 per month. Another set got vacated by him for his personal bona-fide use and occupation was earlier let out on Rs. 17 per month, but now another tenant had been inducted from whom the petitioner was realising Rs. 600 per month as rent. It was alleged that the accommodation in petitioners occupation was more than sufficient and he was not in need of any additional accommodation. He had been occupying and residing in the ground floor since December, 1977 alongwith his three children and mother. Children were brought up, educated in the same set and now two daughters have been married. The size of family had reduced. The married daughters are residing outside Shimla. Even the mother of the petitioner is not residing with him. The respondent alleged that the accommodation in the ground floor was almost identical with the accommodation in his possession, as such, seeking his eviction under summary jurisdiction was highly mala-fide on the part of the petitioner, who had a commercial bent of mind. The respondent initially had been paying Rs. 27.50 per month as rent, which was enhanced by the petit
