Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Shamsher Bahadur and R.S.Narula JJ.
Dhan Devi
Versus
Bakhshi Ram
Civil Revision No. 120 of 1966,
Decided On : MAY 24, 1968
Revision Petition - Landlord's death during pendency - Effect - Scope of revision petition - Abatement of action - Rented land - Requirement for own use - Construction of building - Residential and business use - Superstructures by tenant - New plea in revision.Revision Petition - Landlord's death during pendency - Effect - Scope of revision petition - Abatement of action - Rented land - Requirement for own use - Construction of building - Residential and business use - Superstructures by tenant - New plea in revision.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant from rented land under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act), on the ground that he required the land for his own use and occupation to put up a building and carry on his office. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, and the District Judge dismissed the tenant's appeal. The tenant filed a revision petition in the High Court, and during the pendency of the petition, the landlord died. The tenant contended that the ground of ejectment was personal to the landlord and died with him, and that the revision petition should be allowed and the application for ejectment dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the right to evict a tenant under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act is not a personal right of action that dies with the landlord, and that the landlord's legal representatives can continue the suit for ejectment as his legal representatives. The court also held that an order for eviction does not lapse merely because of the death of the landlord pending a revision petition, and that the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to abatement of actions do not apply to petitions for revision under Section 15(5) of the Act. On the merits, the court held that the landlord can succeed in his application for ejectment under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) only if he alleges and proves that he requires the rented land itself for carrying on his own business or trade, and that he cannot succeed if his case is that he would not use the rented land but a building to be constructed on it for his business or trade. The court also held that the rented land does not cease to be such land merely because the tenant has made some superstructures on the land for his own use.
Issues: 1. Whether the right to evict a tenant under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act is a personal right of action that dies with the landlord? 2. Whether an order for eviction lapses merely because of the death of the landlord pending a revision petition? 3. Whether the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to abatement of actions apply to petitions for revision under Section 15(5) of the Act? 4. Whether the landlord can succeed in his application for ejectment under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) if he alleges and proves that he requires the rented land itself for carrying on his own business or trade? 5. Whether the rented land ceases to be such land merely because the tenant has made some superstructures on the land for his own use?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to evict a tenant under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act is not a personal right of action that dies with the landlord, and the landlord's legal representatives can continue the suit for ejectment as his legal representatives. 2. An order for eviction does not lapse merely because of the death of the landlord pending a revision petition. 3. The provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to abatement of actions do not apply to petitions for revision under Section 15(5) of the Act. 4. The landlord can succeed in his application for ejectment under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) only if he alleges and proves that he requires the rented land itself for carrying on his own business or trade. 5. The rented land does not cease to be such land merely because the tenant has made some superstructures on the land for his own use.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, the order of the District Judge and the Rent Controller were set aside, and the application for ejectment was dismissed.
R.S.Narula, J.
1. Since two common questions of law arise in all these three petitions for revision under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (East Punjab Act No. 3 of 1949), hereinafter called "the Act" it would be convenient to dispose of all of them together by a common judgment. The first of the questions relates to the interpretation and scope of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. The second question, which has been raised for the first time before us and in the nature of things could not have been raised any earlier, is as to the effect of the death of a successful landlord pending a revision petition against an order for ejectment passed in his favour on the groud of personal requirements.
2. The three cases arise out of three separate applications for the ejectment filled by Bakhshi Ram (original respondent in these petitions-since deceased - and now represented by his widow and adopted son, to whom I will refer in this judgment as the landlord) against his tenants in respect of three separate plots of land originally rented out to each of them for carrying on the business of the respective tenant. Though there are some points of difference relating to the dates of commencement of the respective tenancies and some such other minor matters, all those points of difference are wholly immaterial for our purposes and it would be enough to survey the facts of the first of the three cases, i.e., Dhan Devi V. Bakhshi Ram, Civil Revn. No. 120 of 1966, For appreciating the circumstances in which the questions in dispute have arisen.
3. The application for ejectment dilled by the landlord in June 1964 against Dhan Devi widow of Ajaib Singh, the original tenant, was later amended in January 1965 so as to add to the array of respondents the name of Jasbir Bedi, a daughter of Ajaib Singh, in order to meet an objection raised in that behalf. The only ground on which ejectment has ultimately been ordered in this case (as also in the connected case CR 121 of 1966) was pleaded in paragraph 2 (ii) of the application for ejectment in the following words:-
"That the petitioner wants the rented land for his own use and occupation as he has to put up a building over the same and carry on his office at Amristar. The petitioner is not in possession of any other rented land or any other non-residential premises in the vacated any. As such he requires the rented land in a bona fide manner for his own purpose."
3A. The claim of the landlord was contested by the tenant on various grounds. From the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed three issues, but of which we are concerned with issue No. 2 only, which was in the following terms:-
"Where the applicant bona fide requires the rented land in dispute for his own use and occupation and complies with the other terms and conditions as laid down in Section 13 (3) (a) (ii) of the Punjab Act 111 of 1949."
Shri O. P. Aggarwal, Rent Controller, Amristar, by his order dated May 28, 1965, held that the need of the landlord for the rented land in dispute was bona fide because conditions in Srinagar, where he was then carrying on his business, were disturbed and it was proved that he wanted to shift his business to Amristar which was his original place of residence. Regarding the right of the landlord to use the rented land straightway for business premises, after getting it vacated from the tenant, or his having the right of putting up a building on the same for commercial as well as residential purposes it was held by the Rent controller that the landlord is "fully entitled to make such construction on the rented land to enable him to make proper use of the land for the purpose of carrying on his vocation there; that by putting up a suitable structure on the rented land, the rented land could not be said to have ceased to be required by the landlord for his own use." For this proposition reliance was placed
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
