Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Mongia and S.S.Sudhalkar JJ.
State Of Haryana Through Chief Secretary Civil Sectt.
Versus
Ved Parkash Gupta
Letter Patent Appeal No. 494 of 1997,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 17, 1998
RENT CONTROL - EVICTION - PERSONAL NECESSITY - CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS - CONSTITUTIONALITY - HARYANA URBAN (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1973, SECTION 13(3)(A).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a retired military engineer, filed a writ petition challenging the classification between residential and non-residential buildings under Section 13(3)(a) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (1973 Act), which restricted ejectment on the ground of personal necessity to residential buildings only. He sought to evict a tenant from a shop he owned for his personal use.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the classification between residential and non-residential buildings for the purpose of eviction on the ground of personal necessity was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It reasoned that there was no reasonable nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved by the Act, and that the distinction between residential and non-residential buildings was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Issues: 1. Whether the classification between residential and non-residential buildings under Section 13(3)(a) of the 1973 Act was constitutional. 2. Whether the petitioner could challenge the classification despite not availing the benefit under Section 13(3-A) of the Act, which provided additional rights to retired/discharged defense personnel.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal v. The State of Punjab, where it was held that a similar classification in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was unconstitutional. The Court found that the reasoning in Harbilas Rai Bansal was applicable to the present case, as the classification in the 1973 Act was also arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. The Court held that the petitioner's failure to avail the benefit under Section 13(3-A) of the Act did not preclude him from challenging the constitutionality of the classification under Section 13(3)(a). The Court reasoned that the petitioner was challenging the classification as an ordinary citizen, and that his right to do so was not affected by his status as a retired defense personnel.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the respondents, upholding the judgment of the Single Judge who had struck down the impugned provision in Section 13(3)(a) of the 1973 Act.
S.S.Sudhalkar, J.
1. Both the Letters Patent Appeals No. 494 of 1997 and 544 of 1997 arise from the same judgment and have been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, respectively in C.W.P. No. 4161 of 1996 reported as (1997-2)116 P.L.R. 775. These are being disposed of by this common judgment. Respondent Ved Parkash Gupta filed the aforesaid writ petition against the appellants in these two Letters Patent Appeals claiming that the classification between non-residential and residential buildings created by Section 13(3)(a) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act) confining ejectment on the ground of personal necessity only to residential buildings is illegal and unconstitutional. Respondent Ved Parkash Gupta is the owner of a shop situated in the main bazar of Shahbad Markanda, Distt. Kurukshetra. He has averred in the writ petition that he bona fide requires the said shop for his personal use because after taking retirement from Military Engineering Service, which is a part of the defence force, as Assistant Engineer, he intends to carry on his vocation in the demised premises. The petitioner has further averred that he is a licensed surveyor for the purposes of all motor accidents and is also approved valuer of Haryana Financial Corporation. He had filed a petition under Section 13 of the 1973 Act for getting the shop in question vacated and one of the grounds taken therein was that he required the shop for his personal necessity and bona fide use. The ground of personal necessity was not taken into consideration by the Rent Controller on the ground that the said ground was not available qua commercial buildings. For other grounds also, the petition was ordered to be dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 7.2.1995. Appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by the appellate authority.
2. The petitioner filed the writ petition which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 1.5.1997. The learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and strike down the word "residential" appearing in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of Section 13 of the 1973 Act. As stated earlier, these Letter Patent Appeals arise from the said judgment.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Section 13(3) of the 1973 Act reads as under:-
Section 13(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession:-
(a) in the case of residential building, if- (i) he requires it for his own occupation, is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of 1949 Act in the said urban area.
(ii) he requires it for use as an office or consulting room by his son who intends to start practice as lawyer, qualified architect or chartered accountant or as a "registered practitioner" within the meaning of that expression used in the Punjab Medical Registration Act, 1916 the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963, or the Punjab Homeopathic Practitioners Act,- 1965, or for the residence of his son who is married: Provided that such son is not occupying in the Urban area concerned any other building for use as office, consulting room or residence as the case may be and has not vacated it without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1949 Act.
(iii) it was let out to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord and the tenant has ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be in such service or employment. Provided that where the tenant is a workman who has been discharged or dismissed by the landlord from his service or employment in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he shall not be liable to be evicted until the competent authority under th
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
