Back
1994 Supreme(All) 309
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. K. Khanna and O. P. Mathur, JJ.
RAM NATH YADAV - Appellant
Versus
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER, ALLAHABAD - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 7850 Of 1989
Decided On : 04/06/1994
A.KUMAR, ATUL DAYAL, M.M.Dayal, P.K.Jain, S.K.MEHROTRA
The term "family" in Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 should be interpreted according to the restricted meaning defined in Section 3(g) of the Act.
Headnote:
U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 3(G), 12(1)(B), 12(2), 14 - INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "FAMILY" - WHETHER THE TERM "FAMILY" IN SECTION 12(1)(B) AND 12(2) SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO ITS GENERAL MEANING OR THE RESTRICTED MEANING DEFINED IN SECTION 3(G).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landlord, sought to evict the tenant from a shop under Section 16(1)(b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming that the shop was required for his sons' business and that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building due to the induction of a new partner who was not a family member as defined in Section 3(g) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the term "family" in Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Act should be interpreted according to the restricted meaning defined in Section 3(g) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the term "family" in Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Act should be interpreted according to its general meaning or the restricted meaning defined in Section 3(g).
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the definition of "family" in Section 3(g) is exhaustive and that it is not open to the court to bring any person other than those mentioned in the definition. The court also noted that Rule 10(6)(a) of the Act provides that the District Magistrate may allot a non-residential building to a newly constituted or reconstituted firm if the admission of a new partner is a bona fide transaction and not a mere cover for subletting. This provision indicates that the Legislature intended to restrict the meaning of "family" in Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) to the persons mentioned in Section 3(g).
Final Decision: The court answered the question referred to it by holding that the term "family" in Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Act should be given the meaning as defined in Section 3(g) of the Act.
( 1 ) A learned single Judge while hearing the present writ petition has referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench:
"whether the word family used in S. 12 (1) (b) and 12 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 should be interpreted with regard to its general meaning as it is understood commonly so as to include daughter-in-law or other female relations who are normally members of the family or it should be given the restricted meaning as defined in S. 3 (g) of the Act. ?"
( 2 ) FOR the purposes of answering the question which has been referred to us by the learned single Judge, it will be useful to have the relevant facts involved in the present writ petition out of which the reference arises.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in the present writ petition is admittedly the landlord of a shop situated in the city of Allahabad and had moved an application for its release under Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter described as the act) on the ground that the same is bona fide required for carrying on the business by his two sons and that the shop will be deemed to be vacant in view of the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Act.
( 4 ) ONE Ram Din Gupta was the original tenant who was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Har Vilas Prabhu Dayal. In the year 1939 when the tenancy commenced only prabhu Dayal and Ram Din were joint tenants of the premises. Prabhu Dayal died on 26th June, 1967 without leaving any heir resulting in dissolution of the partnership. The partnership was again reconstituted and Surendra Kumar Gupta and Narendra Kumar Gupta both minor sons of ram Din Gupta became partners. The Act came into force on 15th July, 1972 and on that date ram Din Gupta, the original tenant was neither in possession nor the partner in the partnership firm of M/s. Har Vilas Prabhu Dayal. After the coming into force of the Act, the partnership was again dissolved. Ramesh Chandra, Brijendra Kumar Gupta, Surendra Kumar Gupta and Shrimati manju w/o Ashok Kumar became the new partners of the firm M/s. Har Vilas Prabhu Dayal. In the year 1978-79 the firm was again reconstituted. This time Surendra Kumar Gupta, Ramesh kumar, Ashok Kumar Gupta and Brijendra Kumar Gupta became partners. It is not in dispute that at no point of time the landlord consented to the induction of the new partners as tenants of the premises in dispute.
( 5 ) THE landlord had raised the controversy mainly on the ground that Shrimati Manju Gupta was not a member of the family as defined under Section 3 (g) of the Act and thus her induction as a partner in the partnership firm M/s. Har Vilas Prabhu Dayal would amount to admitting a person who is not a member of the family of the tenant as a partner and thus the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building in view of the specific provision of Section 12 (2) of the act.
( 6 ) THE aforesaid application was contested by the respondent on the ground that though the partners changed from time to time they were all members of the Joint Hindu Family and an outsider was not inducted at that point of time; the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Act were not attracted to the case. It was also pleaded that the tenancy stood regularised under Section 14 of the Act and, as such, there could be no vacancy.
( 7 ) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 4-5-1987 held that Shrimati Manju gupta was inducted as a partner after 1st April, 1976 and the Act was amended in 1976. In view of the amended provisions of Section 14 of the Act the tenancy stood regularised and there was no vacancy. A revision was field by the petitioner which too was dismissed on 27-3-1987. The revisional court held that the business of the Firm continued within the members of the Joint hindu Family and no outsider was inducted as a partner of the firm. It was specifically held that shrimati Manju Gupta was the member of the fami
