Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 82
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Jhanji, J.
Krishan Kumar Khurana, Labour Department
Versus
Dharampal Kakkar
Civil Revision No. 4223 of 1994,
Decided On : JANUARY 14, 1997
Under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, a landlord need not be the owner of the property to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - PERSONAL NECESSITY - LANDLORD'S REQUIREMENT OF PREMISES FOR OWN USE AND FAMILY MEMBERS - LANDLORD NEED NOT BE OWNER OF PROPERTY - EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949, SECTIONS 2(C), 13(3)(A)(I)(A).
Fact of the Case:
Landlord filed a petition for eviction of tenant from the ground floor of a five-marla house in Chandigarh under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, claiming personal necessity. The Rent Controller allowed the petition, but the appellate authority dismissed it on the ground that the landlord was not the owner of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the landlord need not be the owner of the property to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The definition of "landlord" in Section 2(c) of the Act includes a person entitled to receive rent, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person. Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act confers a right on the landlord to recover possession of a residential building on the ground of personal necessity, without requiring the landlord to be the owner.
Issues: Whether the landlord must be the owner of the property to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of "landlord" in Section 2(c) and the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act to conclude that the landlord need not be the owner of the property to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The court distinguished the case from Kishan Lal v. Rajan Chand, which was decided under the Delhi Rent Control Act, which has different provisions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the judgment of the appellate authority, and restored the judgment of the Rent Controller, ordering the eviction of the tenant.
V.K.Jhanji, J.
1. This shall dispose of Civil Revisions No. 4223 of 1994.
2. This is landlords revision petition. K.K. Khurana (petitioner herein) filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applicable to Union Territory, Chandigarh, for eviction of Dharam Pal Kakkar (respondent herein) from the ground floor of five-marla house, namely, House No. 1283, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. In his petition, petitioner averred that he as a landlord had inducted respondent as tenant during the month of March, 1985 on rent of Rs. 600/- per month, payable in advance. He sought ejectment of the respondent on the ground of personal necessity. He argued in his petition that premises are required by him for his own use and for his family members. Inasmuch as his mother is aged 70 years and being a heart patient wants to get treatment from P.G.I., Chandigarh. His son, Vineet Khurana has joined B.Sc. Chemical Engineering Course at Chandigarh and thereafter, wants to stay in the said premises. Rent was also claimed w.e.f. 1.10.1988. In his ejectment petition, petitioner specifically averred that he had not vacated any other premises or was in occupation of any other house in Chandigarh after the commencement of the Act. On notice of the petition, respondent filed written statement denying the requirement of the premises by the petitioner for his own use and also for his family members. He however, tendered the rent. He did not specifically deny the averment of the petitioner in the petition that petitioner had not vacated any other premises or was in occupation of any other house Or premises within the area of Chandigarh. Subsequently, petitioner vide an application dated 6.4.1982 sought permission of the Rent Controller to bring on record the additional evidence to show the change in circumstances. In the application, he stated that he stood transferred to Chandigarh as Assistant Director (Head-quarters) w.e.f. 31.7.1991 and though on transfer he is residing on first floor of the house which was got vacated on 15.2.1992, yet accommodation in his occupation is insufficient for his requirement and also for his family members. He also stated- that his status is a Class-II Gazetted Officer of long standing and as such accommodation in his possession is too meagre and insufficient for his requirement. Application to lead additional evidence by way of an affidavit was allowed on payment of costs. Rent Controller on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the tender made by the respondent is insufficient and invalid? OPA.
2. Whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his bonafide personal use and occupation? OPA.
Since the respondent had tendered the rent on the first date of hearing, issue in regard to arrears of rent was decided in favour of the tenants. In regard to the issue of the landlord requiring the premises for his bona-fide personal use and occupation and also for his family members, the Rent Controller found as follows :-
"Admittedly, the petitioner is landlord, but as Laid down in 1992(1) Rent Control Journal, page 280, (supra), the tenant cannot challenge the title and landlord can maintain this petition. The respondent has not examined any other witness, the petitioner has proved by leading cogent evidence, that he has been transferred to Chandigarh and his son is studying in B.Sc. Chemical Engineering and his three children are also staying with him. Although, the Ist floor and barsati portion have been vacated as per the RW- 1, yet it is the choice of the landlord to live as per the requirements and the respondent has not challenged the version given by the petitioner that the mother is old and is living with him, which further proves that the aged mother of the petitioner cannot bear the brunt of going upstairs every now and then."
Consequently, the respondent was ordered to be ejected from the premises in dispute. In appeal by the tena
