Skip to content


Himmat Ram Vs. Jamna Bai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 2704 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1983P& H152
ActsHaryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Sections 13(3A); East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949; General Clauses Act
AppellantHimmat Ram
RespondentJamna Bai and ors.
Excerpt:
.....of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - to remove rigours from various provisions of the act, it has been considered just and proper that among other things the provisions of the act may be made applicable to non-residential buildings as well. the power of the controller as well as that of the appellate and revision authority are proposed to be restored to the judiciary. 13(3a) of the act, which clearly states that it applies to two distinct categories of persons. it is well established that under the general clauses act, singular includes plural......to allege, in the light of the provisions of s. 13(3a) of the haryana urban (control of rent and eviction) act, 1973, (hereinafter called the act), that vijay kumar, landlord was a minor at the time his father atma chand died and that he required the premises for running the business of book binding and stationery therein. vijay kumar, landlord, who appeared as a. w. 4, stated that he was born on oct. 20, 1959, and his father had died on dec. 29, 1962. the learned rent controller after recording the learned counsel, came to the conclusion that vijay kuma, landlord, required the premises, in question, for his own for running the business of book binding and stationery. consequent upon this finding, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. in appeal, the appellate.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurgoan, dated Oct., 1, 1981, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, directing his ejectment from the premises, in dispute, was upheld.

2. The tenant was inducted on the premises, in dispute, on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- by Atma Chand who died on Dec. 29, 1962. The landlords-respondents, who are his successors-in-interest, thus became the landlords qua the tenant and the latter continued paying the rent to them. The eviction application against him was filed on Aug. 25, 1977 and his ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlords required the premises for their own use and occupation. Suresh Kumar and Vijay Kumar, landlords, wanted to run the book binding business therein in order earn their livelihood. Subsequent to the filing of the eviction application, the landlords amended the application to allege, in the light of the provisions of S. 13(3A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (Hereinafter called the Act), that Vijay Kumar, landlord was a minor at the time his father Atma Chand died and that he required the premises for running the business of book binding and stationery therein. Vijay Kumar, landlord, who appeared as A. W. 4, stated that he was born on Oct. 20, 1959, and his father had died on Dec. 29, 1962. The learned Rent Controller after recording the learned counsel, came to the conclusion that Vijay Kuma, landlord, required the premises, in question, for his own for running the business of book binding and stationery. Consequent upon this finding, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. in appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed this finding of the rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order of eviction passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same he has come up in revision to this Court. This petition was mainly admitted as it involved the interpretation of S. 13(3A) of the Act, which is as follows :--

'In the case of a non-residential building, a landlord who stands retried or discharged from the Armed Forces of the Union of India or who was a minor son at the time of death of the deceased landlord and requires it for his personal use, may, within a period of three years from the date of retirement or discharge or attaining the age of eighteen years, as the case may be, apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession;

Provided that where the landlord has obtained possession of a non-residential building under this sub-section, he shall not be entitled to apply again for the possession of any other non-residential building of the same class.'

This amendment to the Act was introduced by Act No. XVI of 1978. Here, it will be relevant to produce the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Bill, 1978, which after its passing by the Legislature, culminated into bringing the abovesaid Amendment Act on the statute book. It reads :

'The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, was enforced from 27th April, 1973, by repealing the East Punjab April, 1973, by repealing the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. By virtue of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of S. 1 of the said Act, only the 'residential buildings' have been granted exemption for a period of ten years from the date of their completion whereas non-residential buildings and rented lands completed/let out after 31st March, 1962, have been left out of the purview of the Act. It has caused a great hardship to the tenants of non-residential buildings and rented lands. To remove rigours from various provisions of the Act, it has been considered just and proper that among other things the provisions of the Act may be made applicable to non-residential buildings as well. The power of the Controller as well as that of the appellate and revision authority are proposed to be restored to the judiciary. It is also proposed that a right be also given to specified categories of persons, such as ex-servicemen and fatherless minor son to apply for eviction of tenant from non-residential building for their own use; and that a tenant be given a right to deposit the rent in the Court in case the landlord refuses to accept the rent Hence the Bill.'

3. The learned counsel for the tenant contended that the provisions of S. 13(3A) of the Act, only contemplate a minor son of a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the Armed Forces of the Union of India who can apply for the eviction of the tenant under these provisions. In other words, according to the learned counsel, it does not mean that any minor son of a landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant under the abovesaid provisions,. It was further argued that S. 13(3A) of the Act, is applicable to the case of such a landlord only who had only one minor son at the time of his death and in a case, where there were other sons, in addition to a minor son, who may be major at the time of the death of a landlord, then, the said provision has no applicability.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any force in there contentions.

5. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the language employed in S. 13(3A) of the Act, which clearly states that it applies to two distinct categories of persons. Viz. (i) a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the Armed Forces of the Union of India, and (ii) a person who was a minor son at the time of the death of his father the deceased landlord. It is also clear from the Statement of Objects and reasons, as reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. Apart from that, it does not stand to reason why after the provision, ' a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the Armed Forces of the Union of India' who can apply for the ejectment of a tenant from the non-residential building, the further provision 'or who was a minor son at the time of the death of the deceased landlord', is also to be read along with that. As a matter of fact, in case of a non-residential building, a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the Armed Forces of the Union of India and requires the premises for his personal use, is a separate category by itself, and a person who was a minor son at the time of the death of the deceased landlord and requires the premises for his personal use, constitutes another separate category, u/s. 13(3A) of the Act. Besides, as regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this provision is applicable to the case of a landlord who has left behind one minor son only who can seek the eviction of a tenant thereunder, the same is wholly fallacious and has to be rejected. It is well established that under the General Clauses Act, singular includes plural. Moreover, the benefit thereunder has been given tot he persons specified therein seeking eviction of the tenants only in case they prove that the demised premises dare required by them for their personal use. It has been concurrently found as a act by both the authorities below that Vijay Kumar, landlord, who was a minor at the time of the death of his father Atma Chand, does require the premises, in dispute, for his personal use, This is a finding of fact based on the appreciation of evidence and I do not find any illegality or infirmity therein as to be interfered with in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

6. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The tenant is allowed two months' time to vacate the premises, in question, provided all the arrears, if any, and the advance rent for these two months is deposited with the Rent Controller within a fortnight from today and he further undertakes to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises after the expiry of two months' period.

7. Revision dismissed.


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