Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2024

Assailing the afore-said order, it is contended by learned counsel for the tenant (pe!!oner herein) that landlord concealed the material fact regarding occupa(cid:28)on of other urban proper(cid:28)es in Jalandhar. Landlord is also guilty to conceal the fact that there are other tenants in other shops and about concealing the factum of filing various ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons against the other tenants. The Rent Controller overlooked the documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 i.e. other ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons filed by the landlord against the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner and others tenants, which were dismissed on merits. Besides, finding has not been given regarding the withholding of the true and material facts by the landlord. It is further contended that landlord has the right to apply for evic(cid:28)on under Sec(cid:28)on 13-B of the 1949 Act only once in the life(cid:28)me and only for one Unit and that he has not disclosed the factum of other shops available with him and some of the shops lying vacant in his possession in the same locality.

4.2 Ld. Counsel for the tenant- pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner has drawn a=en(cid:28)on towards the fact that as per the own admission of the landlord, shop No.4 is lying vacant for the last seven years; whereas other shop, which was in possession of one Sarabjit, was lying vacant for the last three months and that this admission on the part of the landlord itself indicates that landlord is seeking ejectment of the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner-tenant from the demised premises only on whimsical grounds. It is contended further that landlord is well-se=led in UK and that the only purpose of filing this pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on is to get the demised shop vacated, so that the landlord can sell RENU 2024.07.30 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.2 out of 8 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17) it off. With all these submissions, prayer is made to set aside the impugned order and dismiss ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on.

5. Refu(cid:28)ng the afore-said conten(cid:28)ons, it is argued by counsel for the landlord (respondent herein) that there is no concealment of fact. The landlord does not own any other building. Merely because, landlord has got vacated some of the shops of the same building and now he has in occupa(cid:28)on some of the shops of the same building, does not mean that he owned any other building. Learned counsel further submits that various pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons can be filed for ge@ng the building vacated, if it is divided in different units and let out to the different tenants. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Zenobia Bhanot vs P.K. Vasudeva And Anr, 1995 SCC (6) 770. Learned counsel contends further that landlord as well as his wife have the bonafide necessity as they want to convert the en(cid:28)re building into one unit for their residen(cid:28)al use and also to run their business. Learned counsel further contends that the tenant cannot doubt the inten(cid:28)ons of the landlord, once he has deposed about his bonafide necessity. By defending the impugned order as passed by the Rent Controller, learned counsel for the landlord prayed for dismissal of this revision.

6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and with the able assistance of both the counsels, have also perused the paper book and the trial Court record.

7. As Sec(cid:28)on 13-B of the 1949 Act provides a right to the NRI to recover immediate possession of a building as let out to him, a similar right is provided under Sec(cid:28)on 13-A of the Act to the persons, who are going to re(cid:28)re within a year and who had already re(cid:28)red. The provisions of Sec(cid:28)on 13-A also contain the word `building', which word came for considera(cid:28)on before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Zenobia Bhanot's case (supra).

7.1 In that case, landlord owned a building i.e. House No.2, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, which had been let out in four por(cid:28)ons to four separate tenants. ADer re(cid:28)rement, owner expired and his widow filed four applica(cid:28)ons under RENU 2024.07.30 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.3 out of 8 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17) Sec(cid:28)on 13-A of the 1949 Act seeking their ejectment from the building, i.e. from different por(cid:28)ons. Two of the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons were allowed. In the revision filed by these two tenants, High Court held that the landlord was en(cid:28)tled only to one por(cid:28)on of the building and not the other three, as he could use his right to get it vacated under Sec(cid:28)on 13-A of the Act only once in his life(cid:28)me. Consequent to this order, two other ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons against other tenants were dismissed by Rent Controller. Landlady filed revisions.

7.2 As there were divergent opinions, a Single Judge referred the ma=er to the Division Bench for considera(cid:28)on by making the following reference:- "The underlying purpose in enac(cid:28)ng the East Punjab Rent Restric(cid:28)on (Amendment) Act, 1985 as revealed by the statement of its Objects and Reasons, is to provide a summary procedure for evic(cid:28)on of tenants of Defence personnel and other Central and State Government employees, from residen(cid:28)al premises, which on re(cid:28)rement, they may require for their personal occupa(cid:28)on. It needs to be appreciated, in this context, that when any residen(cid:28)al premises are let out and are taken on rent, what prevails are the needs and requirements of the tenant and these may not necessarily be in accord with those of the landlord when he seeks back possession thereof for his personal occupa(cid:28)on. To illustrate a specified landlord, in terms of Sec(cid:28)on 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric(cid:28)on Act (hereinaDer referred to as `the Act') owning a single residen(cid:28)al unit consis(cid:28)ng of three bed-rooms, lets out each bed room separately to different tenants, while he and his family comprising his wife and three grown up children reside in government residen(cid:28)al accommoda(cid:28)on, provided to him, while in service. Would the purpose as envisaged by the Legislature be fulfilled, if on re(cid:28)rement, one bed room is all the accommoda(cid:28)on that he can obtain by this summary procedure. To take another example, while in service, a specified landlord buys a plot of land and builds two huts thereon leaving the other construc(cid:28)on to be done aDer re(cid:28)rement from service. In the meanwhile he lets out these two huts to two different tenants. On re(cid:28)rement, is he to be granted the facility of summary evic(cid:28)on from only one such hut? Many other instances of similar anomalous situa(cid:28)ons can be visualised and would indeed arise. Absurdity cannot, however, be inputed to the Legislature. As is apparent, the Amending Act of 1985 was enacted to fulfil a specific need and to serve a definite purpose. It is impera(cid:28)ve, therefore, that its provisions are so construed, as to be in accord with the clear legisla(cid:28)ve intent. RENU 2024.07.30 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.4 out of 8 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17) The relevant provisions must thus be read to imply that a specified landlord would be en(cid:28)tled to recover. By the summary procedure, such accommoda(cid:28)on, not exceeding one residen(cid:28)al house, as could meet his requirements for personal accommoda(cid:28)on. Seen in this light, the judgment of this Court in Sohan Lal of Pa(cid:28)ala vs. Col Prem Singh Grewal and another, 1989(2) PLR 139 and Civil Revision 1260 of 1989 (Bhupinder Singh vs. Smt. Zenobia Bhanot), decided on November 6, 1989, deserve reconsidera(cid:28)on." (Bhupinder Singh's case is reported in 1990 (2) PLR 335).”

7.3 On the above reference, the Division Bench upheld the view to the effect that the landlord could get evic(cid:28)on order against the tenant only in respect of one unit. The mater ul(cid:28)mately reached Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7.4 Hon'ble Supreme Court no(cid:28)ced the Statement of Objects and Reasons for incorpora(cid:28)ng Sec(cid:28)on 13-A of the Act and then held that view taken by the Division Bench could not be sustained. Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : “10. The (cid:28)tle to Sec(cid:28)on 13A states that the right is given to a `specified landlord' to recover immediate possession of residen(cid:28)al or scheduled building. The Statement of Objects and Reasons also states that the summary procedure for evic(cid:28)on of tenants from the residen(cid:28)al and scheduled buildings is provided in Sec(cid:28)on 13A. The crucial words in Sec(cid:28)on 13A, clearly point out that, where a specified landlord, at any (cid:28)me within one year........applies to the Rent Controller...........to recover possession of his residen(cid:28)al building for his own occupa(cid:28)on........, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such applica(cid:28)on to such specified landlord,.......,a right to recover immediately the possession of such residen(cid:28)al building......or any part or parts of such building, if it is let out in part or parts. The provisions of the Statute are clear. The right is given to a specified landlord to recover immediate possession of the residen(cid:11)al building. He should have re(cid:28)red from the service and should file an affidavit that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommoda(cid:28)on to reside. In such a case, he can require possession of his residen(cid:28)al or scheduled building for his own occupa(cid:28)on. The right is given to the landlord notwithstanding any other provision in the Act or any other law or any contract to the contrary, to recover immediately the possession of such residen(cid:28)al building. If such residen(cid:11)al building is let out in parts, the landlord is given the op(cid:11)on to recover immediately the possession of such residen(cid:11)al building itself or any part or RENU 2024.07.30 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh parts of such building, in cases where it is let out in part or parts. In cases Page No.5 out of 8 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17) where the building is let out in parts, the parts so let out, will form part of the building itself. All that the second provision provides is that the said right shall not enable the landlord to recover possession of more than one residen(cid:28)al or scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts thereof, if the building is let out in part or parts. There are no words in Sec(cid:11)on 13A of the Act to import the idea that if a residen(cid:11)al building is let out in parts, each part will become a residen(cid:11)al building thereby feBering the specified landlord to avail the concession only from a part. Sec(cid:28)on 13A, which gives a special right to the landlord, is to enable him to exercise the right to recover the residen(cid:28)al building for his own occupa(cid:28)on, if he does not own or possess any other suitable accommoda(cid:28)on. In interpre(cid:28)ng the Sec(cid:28)on, it is a far-cry to state, that the ques(cid:28)on as to whether the accommoda(cid:28)on with the landlord aDer taking possession from one of the tenants is sufficient for his personal requirement or not, is not to be gone into in such proceedings. The right is given to the landlord, in case where he does not own or possess any other suitable accommoda(cid:11)on to recover possession of his residen(cid:11)al building. If the building is let out in parts, any or all such parts can also be recovered, since the part or parts let out, form part of the building. Sec(cid:28)on 13A clearly points out that the landlord has an op(cid:28)on to get the recovery (the immediate possession) of the said residen(cid:28)al building or any part or parts of such building, in a case where the building is let out in parts. The op(cid:28)on so given to the landlord by the concluding words in the opening clause of Sec(cid:28)on 13A, in cases where the building is let out in part or parts, either to recover the whole building or to recover in part or parts thereof is reinforced by the second proviso. By no stretch of reasoning, the second proviso to Sec(cid:28)on 13A can be construed as nullifying the main provision of Sec(cid:28)on 13A and, in par(cid:28)cular, the concluding words in the opening clause of Sec(cid:28)on 13A whereby the op(cid:28)on is given to the landlord to recover the possession of residen(cid:28)al building itself or any part or parts thereof in cases where the building is let out in part or parts. We hold that the reasoning and conclusion to the contrary in the two reported judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and also in the judgment under appeal dated 20.7.1992 are clearly erroneous and unjus(cid:28)fied. On the other hand, the reasoning contained in the order of reference dated 26.11.1990, appeals to us, as reasonable and fair and the same is in accord with the legisla(cid:28)ve intent and the language of Sec(cid:28)on 13A of the Act. We set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 20.7.1992 appealed against herein and allow the appeals.” [Bold under-lined por!on emphasised by this court] RENU 2024.07.30 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.6 out of 8 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)

8. It is, thus, clear that it is not necessary for the landlord that he can file only one ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on against the tenant only of one unit of the same building. He can file different ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons against tenants of the different units of the same building.

9. In the light of the afore-said view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contrary view taken by different Benches of this High Court in Lt. Col. Suraj Parkash (Retd.) Vs. Bhoop Singh Chaudhary, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470 and Prabha Kanta Sharma Vs. Smt. Gian Mala Verma, 2007(1) PLR 711, cannot give any advantage to the tenant.

10. In the present case also, it is not in dispute that the landlord has filed different ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons regarding different shops forming part of the same building. It is also not disputed that the landlord has got possession of shop No.4 which is lying vacant for seven years and has also got vacated another shop from one Sarabjit for three months. However, it is not in dispute that these shops form part of the same building. The tenant could not place on record any document to the effect that the landlord owns any other building in the same urban area of Jalandhar. In these facts and circumstances, the conten(cid:28)on of the tenant to the effect that there has been concealment on the part of the landlord regarding owning other buildings in Jalandhar City, is without any merit.

11. The conten(cid:28)on of counsel for the tenant to the effect that landlord is well se=led in UK and he has no inten(cid:28)on to return to India is also without any merit. There is specific pleading as well as evidence on the part of the landlord that his wife has already re(cid:28)red and that he was also going to re(cid:28)re within a year. This pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on was filed way back on 24.03.2006, which means that he had re(cid:28)red in 2007 and now we are in 2024, which means pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner his re(cid:28)rement long back, is now more than 75 years of age, which fact is not disputed even by counsel for the tenant. There is specific averment and evidence on the part of the landlord to the effect that en(cid:28)re property forms one unit and that residence of the landlord is at the backside of the demised premises having small rooms and that aDer coming back to India, he intends to convert the en(cid:28)re building into RENU 2024.07.30 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.7 out of 8 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17) one unit, which he requires for his residence as well as occupa(cid:28)on. It has also been tes(cid:28)fied that he has four sons who are married and has also the grandchildren and they can be able to visit him only once if he se=les here permanently. The said tes(cid:28)mony of landlord cannot disputed by the tenant, once he had deposed about his bonafide necessity.

12. On the account of the en(cid:28)re discussion as above, it is held that Ld. Rent Controller did not commit any error in direc(cid:28)ng the ejectment of the tenant (pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner herein) from the demised shop. Impugned order is accordingly upheld. Finding no merit in the present revision pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on, the same is hereby dismissed. July 29, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No RENU 2024.07.30 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.8 out of 8 pages