Back
1986 Supreme(P&H) 114
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.V.Gupta, J.
Sewa Ram Sethi
Versus
Des Raj
Civil Revision No. 2723 of 1985,
Decided On : APRIL 7, 1986
The grounds of requirement of premises for the landlord's own use and occupation under Section 13(3)(a) and for the residence of the landlord's married son under Section 13(3)(iv) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 are independent grounds for ejectment, and the requirement of dependence of the son on the landlord is not necessary for ejectment under Section 13(3)(iv).
Headnote:
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 13(3)(A), 13(3)(IV) - EJECTMENT - GROUNDS - LANDLORD'S REQUIREMENT FOR OWN USE AND OCCUPATION - LANDLORD'S REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENCE OF MARRIED SON - INDEPENDENT GROUNDS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 13(3)(IV) - REQUIREMENT OF DEPENDENCE OF SON ON LANDLORD - OBITER DICTA - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - EFFECT ON EJECTMENT ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord sought ejectment of tenant on the ground of requirement of premises for the residence of his married son under Section 13(3)(iv) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment, but the appellate authority reversed the order, relying on a judgment of the High Court in Kasturi Lal Sharma v. Kartar Singh, which dealt with the requirement of the landlord for his own use and occupation under Section 13(3)(a) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the judgment in Kasturi Lal Sharma v. Kartar Singh was distinguishable and not applicable to the present case, as it dealt with a different ground for ejectment under Section 13(3)(a) and not Section 13(3)(iv). The court found that the landlord was entitled to seek ejectment for the residence of his married son under Section 13(3)(iv), even if the son was not dependent on him and was residing separately.
Issues: 1. Whether the ground of requirement of premises for the residence of a married son under Section 13(3)(iv) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is independent of the ground of requirement for landlord's own use and occupation under Section 13(3)(a). 2. Whether the requirement of dependence of the son on the landlord is necessary for ejectment under Section 13(3)(iv). 3. Whether subsequent events, such as the transfer of the son to a different city, can affect the ejectment order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the ground of requirement of premises for the residence of a married son under Section 13(3)(iv) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is independent of the ground of requirement for landlord's own use and occupation under Section 13(3)(a). 2. The court held that the requirement of dependence of the son on the landlord is not necessary for ejectment under Section 13(3)(iv). 3. The court held that subsequent events, such as the transfer of the son to a different city, cannot affect the ejectment order, as long as the landlord continues to require the premises for the residence of his married son.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the tenant.
J.V.Gupta, J.
1. This is landlords petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal.
2. The landlords Sewa Ram and Baldev Ran (both brothers) sought ejectment of their tenant Des Raj from the premises in dispute i.e. the residential building situated in Jullundur which was on monthly rent of Rs. 40/- with him. The ejectment was sought primarily on the ground that Sewa Ram landlord required the promises in dispute for the sue of his married son B.M. Sethi, who was previously employed in Central Bank India, Chandigarh and was now transferred to Jullundur 25.8.1980. It was further pleaded that B.M. Sethi does not own any other residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated any such property at Jullundur after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). In the written statement, the tenant asserted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Sewa Ram. He also controverted the allegations of landlords and pleaded that B.M. Sethi does not require the premises for his own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller found that both the petitioners are the landlords whereas Des Raj is the tenant under them. It was further found that B.M. Sathi is the son of Sewa Ram landlord and he requires the premises in dispute bonafide for his married son as provided under section 13(3)(iv) of the Act. Consequently, eviction order was passed vide order dated 18.81982. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the learned Rent Controller relying on the judgment of this Court in Kasturi Lal Sharma v. Kartar Singh, 1984(1) RCR 211. According to the lower appellate authority since B.M. Sethi is living separately for 12/13 years prior to the filing of present ejectment application and is not dependent on Sewa Ram landlord, the landlord was not entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant that ground i.e. for the residence of his married son. In view of that finding, eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this petition in this Court.
3. During the pendency of this petition, the tenant Des Raj moved C.M. No. 1057-CII/86 in order to bring subsequent facts on record for consideration at the time of final hearing. It was stated therein that during the pendency of this petition, said B.M. Sethi for whom the premises were sought to be vacated was transferred from Jullundur to Ludhiana and therefore, the ground on which the ejectment application was filed, was no more in existence. Reply to the said application was filed on behalf of the landlords by way of affidavit of B.M. Sethi. He admitted that he had been transferred from Jullundur to Ludhiana but at the same time he had categorically stated in para 6 thereof that he has not shifted his residence from Jullundur to Ludhiana nor he has and intention to shift the same. He also filed the certificate from the School to show that his children are still studying at Jullundur. According to his affidavit he is a daily passenger from Jullundur to Ludhiana. It has been further stated therein that during the pendency of this petition, the landlord Sewa Ram has himself also retired and therefore wants to shifts to his own house i.e. the premises in dispute and stay with his son and granted children.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approach of the lower appellate authority was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived and the judgment relied on in Kasturi Lals case (supra) was clearly distinguishable and has no applicability to the facts of the present case. It was further contended that under section 13 of the Act, the ejectment could be sought by the landlord if he wanted to occupy his own premises as provided under section 13(3)(a) whereas the landlord is also entitled to get the building vacated for the residence of his married son under 13(3)(iv). Thu
