Skip to content


Hans Raj Vs. Som Prakash - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 198 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1973P& H245
ActsEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act - Sections 2 and 13
AppellantHans Raj
RespondentSom Prakash
Cases ReferredShambu Datt v. Balwant Lal
Excerpt:
.....that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an..........landlord for his personal needs and also that the tenant had used the said premises for business purposes-a purpose other than that for which they were leased. since the arrears of rent had been paid by the tenant on the first date of hearing, that ground became non-available to the landlord. as regards the fourth ground, it was held that it had not been proved. when the matter came in appeal before the appellate authority he confirmed both the findings of the rent controller and dismissed the appeal. the tenant has come here in revision.4. it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority was in error in holding that the tenant had used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. his argument was that even if it be established.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a tenant's revision petition against the decision of the Appellate Authority confirming on appeal, the order of the Rent Controller ordering his eviction.

2. On 8-6-1962, the premises in dispute, which are situate in Patiala, were rented out by its owner, Som Parkash to Hans Raj, at a monthly rent of Rs. 33/50 for a period of 11 months and the tenancy had to start with effect from 1-6-1962. On 3-1-1969 an application for ejectment under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, hereinafter called the Act, was filed by the landlord against the tenant and the grounds for ejectment mentioned therein were four, viz. (i) personal necessity; (ii) that the tenant was in arrears of rent; (iii) that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises; and (iv) that the tenant had used the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was leased.

3. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required by the landlord for his personal needs and also that the tenant had used the said premises for business purposes-a purpose other than that for which they were leased. Since the arrears of rent had been paid by the tenant on the first date of hearing, that ground became non-available to the landlord. As regards the fourth ground, it was held that it had not been proved. When the matter came in appeal before the Appellate Authority he confirmed both the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The tenant has come here in revision.

4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority was in error in holding that the tenant had used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. His argument was that even if it be established that the premises had been let out by the landlord only for residential purposes and the tenant was using the same both for residential and commercial purposes, this ground was not available to the landlord, because the tenant had been doing so from the very start of the tenancy and in the very presence of the landlord, who was living near the premises and, consequently, the latter was estopped from raising this ground of eviction. For this submission, he placed his reliance on an unreported judgment of A. N. Bhandari C. J. in Civil Revn. No. 93 of 1959 (Parkash Chand v. Sat Parkash) decided on 21-10-1959 (Punj). Apart from the fact that there is a decision of Sarkaria J. in Shambu Datt v. Balwant Lal, 1968-70 Pun LR 790 which had held otherwise, after noticing the judgment of the learned Chief Justice, I am of the view that there is no necessity of discussing this point or referring it to a larger Bench, because in the instant case, the order of eviction can be sustained on the other ground found against the tenant, namely, that the landlord requires the premises for his personal needs. On that part of the case, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the premises were non-residential and, therefore, no order of eviction could be passed on the ground of personal necessity. That argument is, however, not available to the petitioner, because on his own pleadings, the premises in dispute were not non-residential but residential. In his reply to the eviction application, he had stated that the premises in dispute were shop-cum-residential building and were let out to him for business and residential purposes. In his statement on oath as R. W. 6, he reiterated the same position by deposing that he took the premises on lease for residence and carrying on his business and since the day he took them he had been using the same for business and residence purposes.

5. 'Non-residential building' has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Act as a building which is being used solely for the purpose of business on trade. There is a proviso added to this definition, according to which, the residence in a building for the purpose of only guarding it shall not be deemed to convert a 'non-residential building' into a ' residential building'. It is not the case of the tenant that he was residing in the premises merely for the purpose of guarding it. 'Residential building' has been defined in Section 2(g) as ' a building which is not a non-residential building'. On the wording of the statute itself, it is clear that, in the instant case, on the pleadings of the tenant himself, the premises in dispute would be a residential building.

6. It has been found as a fact both by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the landlord required these premises bona fide for his personal needs. This is a pure finding of fact, which has not been shown to be vitiated in any manner. Indisputably, a landlord can get a tenant evicted on this ground from a premises, which is residential.

7. I will, therefore, dismiss the petition, but leave the parties to bear their own costs in this Court.

8. Petitions dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //