Back
2002 Supreme(P&H) 1372
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar, J.
Harjit Singh
Versus
Daya Ram Sat Narain
Civil Revision No. 1445 of 1993,
Decided On : DECEMBER 11, 2002
The interpretation of the term 'specified landlord' and the definition of 'residential building' and 'non-residential building' under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and the landlord's right to recover immediate possession of a residential building under Section 13A.
Headnote:
Ejectment - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13-A - 2(hh), 2(d), 2(g), 11, 13A - The court discussed the interpretation of the term 'specified landlord' under Section 2(hh) and the definition of 'residential building' and 'non-residential building' under Sections 2(d) and 2(g) of the Act. The court also considered the prohibition on converting a residential building into a non-residential building under Section 11 and the right to recover immediate possession of a residential building under Section 13A. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing that a building used for both residential and non-residential purposes would be considered a residential building, and the landlord's right to recover possession of a residential building, even if let out in parts.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord-petitioner sought ejectment of the tenant-respondent claiming to be a specified landlord under Section 13-A of the Act. The Rent Controller held that the landlord was entitled to receive rent in respect of the building on his own account and had filed the application within the specified period. The only debated question was whether the building in question was a residential building under Section 13A of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the building, being used for both residential and non-residential purposes, would be considered a residential building, entitling the landlord to recover possession under Section 13A. The Rent Controller's finding that the landlord could not seek eviction from all parts of the building was also deemed unsustainable, as the Supreme Court had reversed a similar judgment.
Issues: Interpretation of the term 'specified landlord', definition of 'residential building' and 'non-residential building', prohibition on converting a residential building into a non-residential building, and the right to recover immediate possession of a residential building.
Ratio Decidendi: A building used for both residential and non-residential purposes would be considered a residential building, entitling the landlord to recover possession under Section 13A. The landlord's right to recover possession of a residential building, even if let out in parts, was upheld.
Final Decision: The tenant-respondents were granted three months to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord-petitioner, failing which the landlord-petitioner would be entitled to execute the order and recover possession immediately on the expiry of three months.
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. This judgment would dispose of three civil revision petitions namely Civil Revision Nos. 1445, 1561 and 1810 of 1993 as the common question of law and facts have been raised by the landlord petitioner against the defendant-tenants who has sought their ejectment claiming to be a specified landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity the Act). For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from C.R. No. 1445 of 1993. The Rent Controller in his order dated 15.12.1992 has repelled the claim of the landlord-petitioner by dismissing his application in which prayer was made for eviction of the tenant respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.1992 dismissing his application, the landlord petitioner has filed the present petitions by invoking the provisions of Section 18A of the Act.
2. The findings which have attained finality against the tenant-respondent and have not been challenged before this Court may first be noticed, The Rent Controller has held that he landlord-petitioner is a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2 (hh) of the Act as he is entitled to receive the rent in respect of the building on his own account and that the petitioner had retired as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 30.11.1990 from ME-CON (India) Ltd. Ranch! which is a Government of India undertaking in the Ministry of Iron and Steel. The Rent Controller on the strength of Ex.A.3 has further held that the whole shares of the MECON India Ltd. are subscribed by the President of India and for all Intents and purposes it was a Central Government enterprise. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the landlord petitioner held an appointment in public service or a post in connection with the affairs with the Union of India which would bring him within the four corners of Section 2(hh) of the Act which reads as under:
"2(hh) "Specified landlord" means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State."
3. This question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Gopal Sharma v. Sukhdev Raj Rudra, (2001)9 S.C.C, 201 where an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India was held to be a public servant and therefore a specified landlord under Section 2(hh) read with Section 13 A of the Act. It has further been held that the application under Section 13 A of the Act for eviction of the tenant was maintainable by a co-owner/landlord. Even otherwise there is no challenge raised by the tenant respondent to the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on this aspect. The Rent Controller has also held that the application has been filed by the land lord-petitioner within the specified period mentioned in Section 13 A of the Act. The landlord-petitioner had retired on 30.11.1990 and the application was filed on 31.5.1991 which is within a period of one year after his retirement as specified by Section 13A of the Act.
4. Another finding which has not been assailed by the tenant-respondent before this Court as recorded by the Rent Controller is regarding the competence or locus-standi of the landlord-petitioner to file eviction application. The Rent Controller has held that the landlord-petitioner being one of the co-landlord was entitled to sue under Section 13-A of the Act in his capacity as a specified landlord for his personal necessity and he was also entitled to recover rent of the building on his own behalf as he was owner of every nook and corner of the house. The Rent Controller also held that the Will propounded by the landlord-petitioner was not contested. Therefore, he was entitled to institute an application under Section 13-A of the Act. This finding has also attained finality as none of the tenant-respondents have challenged this finding.
5. The only question which has been
