Zenobia
Bhanot Vs. P.K. Vasudeva & Anr [1995] INSC 676 (14 November 1995)
Paripoornan,
K.S.(J) Paripoornan, K.S.(J) Kuldip Singh (J) Pariooornan. J.
CITATION:
1996 AIR 601 1995 SCC (6) 770 JT 1995 (8) 97 1995 SCALE (6)356
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
The
appellant in the appeals is one Smt. Zenobia Bhanot, wife of late Sri S.N. Bhanot
(hereinafter referred to as the landlady). The respondents are
(1)
Sri P.K. Vasudeva and
(2)
Sri Surinder Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the tenants). One Sri S.N.Bhanot,
IAS, who was working as Commissioner in the Government of Haryana, retired on
31.8.1975. He died on 5.1.1985. The appellant is his widow.
Late
Sri S.N. Bhanot owned a building - House No. 2, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh. The said building was let out in
four portions to four separate tenants. They are –
(1)
Sri Bhupinder Singh (one room),
(2) Dr.(Mrs.)
S.K. Gill (two rooms),
(3)
Sri P.K. Vasudeva (two rooms, kitchen, toilet, varandah, (two rooms, kitchen,
toilet, varandah, bathroom, etc.) and
(4)
Sri Surinder Sharma (two rooms, kitchen, varandah, toilet, etc.).
2. The
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act) is applicable in the city of Chandigarh. The said Act was amended by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
(Amendment) Act, 1985 (Act No.
2 of
1985). The Amendment Act received the assent of Governor of Punjab on
15.11.1985 and published by notification dated 16.11.1985. The said amendment
was adopted for the Union Territory of Chandigarh on 15.12.1986 by Notification
No.GSR 1287(E) dated 15.12.1986.
3. In
the appeals, we are concerned with the scope of Section 13A of the Act, as
amended. By the said provision a right was conferred on a "specified
landlord" to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building.
It
will be useful to extract the relevant provisions of the Act, applicable in
this case, to adjudicate the controversy posed herein:- "Sec.2(g)
"residential building" means any building which is not a
nonresidential building;" "Sec.2 (hh) specified landlord means a
person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own
account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or
post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State;"
"13A. Right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled
building to accrue to certain persons:
Where
a specified landlord at any time, within one year prior to or within one year
after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of
the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment)
Act, 1985, whichever is later, applies to the Controller alongwith a
certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating
the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own
or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he
intends to reside to recover possession of his residential building or
scheduled building, as the case may be, for his own occupation, there shall
accrue, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord,
notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law
for the time being in force or in any contract (whether expressed or implied),
custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately the possession
of such residential building or scheduled building or any part or parts of such
building if it is let out in part or parts:
Provided
that in case of death of the specified landlord, the widow or widower of such
specified landlord and in the case of death of such widow or widower, a child
or grand-child or a widowed daughter-in-law who was dependent upon such
specified landlord at the time of his death shall be entitled to make an application
under this section to the Controller.- (a) in the case of death of such
specified landlord, before the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, within one year of such commencement;
(b) in
the case of death of such specified landlord, after such commencement, but
before the date of his retirement, within one year of the date of his death;
(c) in
the case of death of such specified landlord, after such commencement and the
date of his retirement, within one year of the date of such retirement;
and on
the date of such application the right to recover the possession of the
residential building or scheduled building, as the case may be, which belonged
to such specified landlord at the time of his death shall accrue to the
applicant;
Provided
further that nothing in this section shall be so construed as conferring a
right, on any person to recover possession of more than one residential or
scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in
part or parts :
Provided
further that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable period for putting
the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child,
grandchild or widowed daughter-in-law in possession of the residential building
or scheduled building, as the case may be, and may extend such time so as not
to exceed three months in the aggregate.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section
expression "retirement" means termination of service of a specified
landlord otherwise than by resignation." (emphasis supplied)
4. The
appellant, widow of late Sri S.N. Bhanot, a "specified landlord"
filed four applications under Section 13A of the Act against the four tenants
mentioned hereinabove, to whom the building, House No. 2, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh,
was let out in four portions. The said applications came up before three
different Rent Controllers. The application filed against Sri Bhupinder Singh
was disposed of by Sri Gursewak Singh, Rent Controller, who ordered eviction on
15.3.1989. Similarly, in the application filed against Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Gill,
eviction was ordered by Sri Birender Singh, Rent Controller on 27.1.1989. The
tenants filed revisions, CRP No. 1260 of 1989 and CRP No. 1306 of 1989,
assailing the order of ejectment, passed against them. They were disposed of by
a common judgment dated 6.11.1989. The judgment is reported in 1990 (2) PLR
335. The learned single Judge of the High Court took the view that under the
second proviso to Section 13A of the Act the landlord is entitled to recover
possession of only one residential building -- one part. In the way, events
turned out, the landlord exercised the option by choosing the portion of the
building, which was let out to Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Gill, and the ejectment order was
upheld (CRP No. 1306/89). In this process, the ejectment petition against Sri Bhupinder
Singh was dismissed and the revision filed by the tenant was allowed (CRP No.
1260/89). The special leave petition (c) No. 14900/91 filed by the appellant
against the order in CRP No. 1260/89 was dismissed on the ground of delay by
this Court.
5. As
a sequal to the above proceedings, the applications filed against Sri Surinder
Sharma and Sri P.K. Vasudeva were dismissed by the Rent Controller Sri B.M. Bajaj
on 20.12.1989. It was held that the petitions have become infructuous in view
of the decision of the High Court dated 6.11.1989 (1990 (2) PLR 335). The
appellant herein (landlady) filed CRP No. 3025/90 and CRP No. 3040/90 in the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana and assailed the decision of the Rent
Controller dated 20.12.1989. When the revision came up before a learned single
Judge, (Sodhi, J.), he referred the matter to a Division Bench for
consideration by order dated 26.11.1990. The order of reference is in the following
terms:- "The underlying purpose in enacting the East Punjab Rent
Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 as revealed by the statement of its Objects
and Reasons, is to provide a summary procedure for eviction of tenants of Defence
personnel and other Central and State Government employees, from residential
premises, which on retirement, they may require for their personal occupation.
It needs to be appreciated, in this context, that when any residential 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 occupation. To
illustrate a specified landlord, in terms of Section 13-A of the East Punjab
Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') owning a
single residential unit consisting 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 residential accommocation,
provided to him, while in service. Would the purpose as envisaged by the
Legislature be fulfilled, if on retirement, one bed room is all the
accommodation 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 construction to be done
after retirement from service. In the meanwhile he lets out these two huts to
two different tenants. On retirement, is he to be granted the facility of
summary eviction from only one such hut? Many other instances of similar
anomalous situations 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. If is imperative, therefore, that its provisions are
so construed, as to be in accord with the clear legislative intent. The
relevant provisions must thus be read to imply that a specified landlord would
be entitled to recover. by the summary procedure, such accommodation, not
exceeding one residential house, as could meet his requirements for personal
accommodation.
Seen
in this light, the judgment of this Court in Sohan Lal of Patiala 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, desarve
reconsideration." (Bhupinder Singh's case is reported in 1990 (2) PLR
335).
(emphasis
supplied)
6. The
revisions were heard by the Division Bench of the High Court, which, by its
order dated 20.7.1993. approved the interpretation placed on the second proviso
to Section 13A of the Act by earlier two decisions (of single Judges) Sohan Lal
of Patiala vs. Col. Prem Singh Grewal and another, (1989(2) PLR 139) Bhupinder
Singh vs. Smt. Zenobia Bhanot, (1990 (2) PLR 335), and held thus:- "The
concession granted under Section 13-A of the Act was subject to certain rigours.
Second proviso to this Section envisages that a specified landlord can recover
immediate possession of the residential or scheduled building and if the
building has been let out in parts to different tenants, the specified landlord
can evict the tenants under this provision only from the portion in provision
only from the portion in possession of that tenant. The language used in the
section that the specified landlord could recover possession of one residential
or scheduled building inclusive of any part of parts thereof if it is let out
in part or parts suggests that if a residential or a scheduled building is let
out in parts, each part will become a scheduled building enabling the specified
landlord to avail the concession only from a part." "On going through
the proviso and Section 13-A as a whole, I am also of the opinion that a
landlord can get possession of the tenanted premises under the aforesaid
provision from one of the tenants if there are more, The intention of the
Legislature in enacting the provision is that the specified landlord should be
in position to get possession of the tenanted premises from his tenant
immediately on his retirement. The question whether accommodation with the
landlord after taking possession from one of the tenants is sufficient for his
personal requirement or not is not to be gone into in such proceedings. On such
grounds, the landlord has to take recourse to the provision of Section 13(3) of
the main Act." (emphasis supplied) Thereafter, the appellant moved this
Court by special leave petition (c) No. 1298-99/93 and after obtaining leave,
has filed the appeals against the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of
the High Court dated 20.7.1992.
7. We
heard counsel. The appellant's counsel submitted that the interpretation placed
on Section 13A of the Act by the High Court is clearly erroneous and fails to
give effect to the concluding words in the opening clause of Section 13A of the
Act and has totally misinterpreted and misunderstood Section 13A and also the
second proviso thereto. The submission was that Section 13A is a special
provision enacted to give relief to `specified landlord', who does not own or
possess any other suitable accommodation for his own occupation, a right to
recover immediately the possession of his residential building and if such
residential building is let out in part or parts, the landlord has the right or
option to recover immediately the possession of the building or any part or
parts of such building. The proviso enjoins that the said right shall not
enable the landlord to recover possession of more than one residential or
scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts thereof. In a case where the
residential building is let out in part or parts, the landlord will have the right
to recover the possession of the building itself, inclusive of any part or
parts thereof. It is a clear error to conclude that in the case of residential
building, which is let out in part or parts, each part will become a scheduled
building or a residential building restricting the right of the specified
landlord to avail the concession "only from a part". It is erroneous
to surmise that the landlord can get possession of the tenanted premises under
Section 13A of the Act from one of the tenants only, if there are more than one
and the question whether accommodation of the landlord after taking possession
from one tenant is sufficient for his personal requirement or not, is not to be
gone into in such proceedings. Counsel submitted that Section 13A of the Act
should be construed as a whole and reasonably, and bearing in mind the
Statement of Objects and Reasons for inserting Section 13A of the Act in the
main Statute. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that the
interpretation placed by two earlier decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court
in Sohan Lal of Patiala vs. Col. Prem Singh Grewal and another, (1989(2) PLR
139) Bhupinder Singh vs. Smt. Zenobia Bhanot, (1990 (2) PLR 335), and also in
the decision under appeal, are warranted by the terms of Section 13A of the
Act.
8. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons for incorporating Section 13A of the Act is as
follows, as is seen from Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary dated
30.10.1985 :- "There have been representations that defence personnel and
other Central and State Government Employees are facing considerable
difficulties in getting their residential houses vacated from tenants. The
existing provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 do not
provide any immediate relief to such employees. Cases have come to the notice
of the State Government where such personnel are forced to face protracted
litigation in courts involving considerable hardship and financial loss. The Kendrya
Sainik Board has also been pressing the State Government to provide relief in
this regard.
With a
view to mitigate the hardship being faced by defence personnel and other
Central and State Government employees, there is a need to amend the East
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 providing summary procedure for
eviction of tenants from the residential and scheduled buildings of defence
personnel and other Central and State Government employees on the eve of their
retirement for their personal occupation and enabling such employees to get
such buildings vacated from tenants within one year prior to or within one year
after the date of retirement or after their retirement within one year of the
date of commencement of this legislative measure. In the case of death of such
a person the benefit of seeking eviction through summary procedure is also
proposed to be granted to his widow or widower as the case may be, a child or a
grand child or a widowed daughter-in- law, who was dependent upon him.
Further
safeguarding against misuse, the Bill also makes a provision for imprisonment
and fine in case such a person after having evicted a tenant/tenants through
summary procedure does not occupy the building within three months of lets out
it or any portion thereof within three years of such eviction and evicted
tenant has also been made entitled to restoration of possession of the building
in question." (emphasis supplied)
9. On
an anxious consideration of the rival pleas urged before us, we are of the
opinion that the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sohan Lal's
(supra) case and in Bhupinder Singh's (supra) case, which were followed in the
judgment under appeal, are erroneous in law. In Sohan Lal's case Gupta, J., at
p.142, adverted to the second proviso to Section 13A of the Act and stated thus:-
"Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument, that the whole building
was let out in different parts to the different tenants, even then according to
the said proviso, the landlord could not recover possession of more than one
residential building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in
part or parts." In so formulating the law, the learned Judge failed to
advert to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing Section 13A and
also the concluding words of the opening clause in Section 13A itself. At the
same time undue emphasis has been given to the second proviso alone, to hold
that when the whole building is let out in different parts to different
tenants, the landlord could not recover possession of more than one residential
building inclusive of any part or parts thereof, if it is let out in part or
parts. The landlord could claim ejectment of one of the tenant from one part of
the building and not of the tenants from all parts of the building. The latter
decision in Bhupinder Singh's (supra) has only followed the earlier decision,
wherein the learned Judge stated thus:- "Second proviso to the aforesaid
section, as reproduced above, makes it abundantly so considered as conferring a
right to recover possession of more than one residential or scheduled building
inclusive of any part or parts thereof if the same was let out in part or
parts. The combined reading of this proviso alongwith the provision of the
section leaves no manner of doubt that the landlord is required to take
possession of the building or part or parts as let out to a tenant." In
the judgment under appeal the learned Judges have held that when a residential
building is let out in part or parts, each part will become a residential
building, enabling the specified landlord to avail the concession only from a
part and the question as to whether accommodation of the landlord, after 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 Division Bench did not
advert, to the salient aspects mentioned in the order of reference dated
26.11.1990. We hold that Section 13A of the Act, construed as a whole, does not
warrant the conclusion arrived at in the three decisions referred to
hereinabove.
10.
The title to Section 13A states that the right is given to a `specified
landlord' to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons also states that the summary procedure for
eviction of tenants from the residential and scheduled buildings is provided in
Section 13A. The crucial words in Section 13A, clearly point out that, where a
specified landlord, at any time within one year........applies to the Rent
Controller...........to recover possession of his residential building for his
own occupation........, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such
application to such specified landlord,.......,a right to recover immediately
the possession of such residential 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 residential building. He should have retired from the service
and should file an affidavit that he does not own and possess any other
suitable accommodation to reside. In such a case, he can require possession of
his residential or scheduled building for his own occupation. 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 residential building. If such residential building is let
out in parts, the landlord is given the option to recover immediately the
possession of such residential building itself or any part or parts of such
building, in cases where it is let out in part or parts. In cases 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
residential 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 Section 13A of
the Act to import the idea that if a residential building is let out in parts,
each part will become a residential building thereby fettering the specified
landlord to avail the concession only from a part. Section 13A, which gives a
special right to the landlord, is to enable him to exercise the right to
recover the residential building for his own occupation, if he does not own or
possess any other suitable accommodation.
In
interpreting the Section, it is a far-cry to state, that the question as to
whether the accommodation with the landlord after 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 accommodation to recover
possession of his residential 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. Section 13A clearly points out that the landlord has
an option to get the recovery (the immediate possession) of the said
residential building or any part or parts of such building, in a case where the
building is let out in parts. The option so given to the landlord by the
concluding words in the opening clause of Section 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 Section 13A can be construed as
nullifying the main provision of Section 13A and, in particular, the concluding
words in the opening clause of Section 13A whereby the option is given to the
landlord to recover the possession of residential 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 unjustified. 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
legislative intent and the language of Section 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.
There
shall be no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2