The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'government servant' under Rule 16 (2) (d) of the Act No.13 of 1972 in the context of the need expressed for a family member working abroad and wanting to settle in India.

JUDGMENT :

The issue would be as to whether a “government servant” of the United States of America, would be treated as to be equal, as to be a government servant serving in India, to bring him with the exception clause provided under sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of the Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act No.13 of 1972.

2. The brief facts are, that initially the respondent/landlord had initiated the proceedings under section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, being Suit No.07 of 2009, “Harvansh Lal Vs. Harjinder Singh”, before the court of 1st ADJ, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on the ground that the petitioner/tenant has failed to remit the rent which was due to be paid of the shop in question. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment of 17th December, 2014.

3. In fact, initially the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the dismissal of the SCC suit would be having a bearing, on the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, which was instituted subsequent to the dismissal of the SCC Suit. At this juncture itself, it would be apt to answer that the scope of section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, and the field which it covers under section 21 (1) (a) of Act No.13 of 1972, is distinct to the one provided under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act No.13 of 1972, for the reason being that section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act itself, has got its parameters and periphery within which the proceedings under it, could be decided. Its dismissal will have no bearing when the tenant institutes the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground of the bonafide need, which is a field not covered by the proceedings under section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.

4. Thus, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner will have no legal effect, as such so far as the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act No.13 of 1972, is concerned, because it is absolutely an independent proceedings and will not be clouded by any earlier decision taken in the SCC suit merely based upon the ground of the default committed in remittance of the rent.

5. After the dismissal of the SCC suit, it is contended by the petitioner/tenant, that a release application was preferred by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act No.13 of 1972, for seeking a release of the tenement in question on the personal need, and for the said purpose certain grounds, which are provided under the Act No.13 of 1972, has been taken in the release application itself, would required to be considered, the release thus instituted by the respondent before the court of learned Prescribed Authority being Rent Control Case No.01 of 2015, “Harvansh Lal Vs. Harjinder Singh”, it was primarily the ground for release of the tenement, which has been described as to be a shop of 16 x 13 feet, bearing No.I6, the precincts of which has been given in paragraph 1 of the release application, situated in Punjabi Market, Shop No.I-6, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was sought to be released on the ground, that the landlord and his children, they are qualified medical practitioner and at present i.e. when the release application was preferred on 04.02.2015, they were working in the United States of America, under the government employment, and since they had an affinity to the country, they wanted to leave the government job and they intended to settle in India to serve the public, and that was the intention expressed for the purposes of the bonafide need of the landlord as per paragraph 2 of the release application.

6. The release application was contested and after the contest being put to the Release Application No.01 of 2015, “Harvansh Lal Vs. Harjinder Singh” was ultimately allowed by the court of Prescribed Authority by the judgment of 01.10.2021, and consequentially the Rent Control Appeal No.09 of 2017, “Harjinder Singh Vs. Harvansh Lal”, as preferred under section 22 of Act No