Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the interpretation and scope of Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as amended by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, which conferred a right on specified landlords to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled buildings for their own occupation after retirement. Late Sri S.N. Bhanot, an IAS officer who retired on 31 August 1975 and died on 5 January 1985, owned House No. 2, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, which was let out in four portions to four separate tenants. His widow, the appellant landlady, filed four applications under Section 13A against the tenants seeking eviction. The amendment was applicable to Chandigarh following its adoption by notification dated 15 December 1986. The Rent Controller ordered eviction against two tenants, Bhupinder Singh and Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Gill, on 15 March 1989 and 27 January 1989 respectively. In revision, a single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by common judgment dated 6 November 1989 held that under the second proviso to Section 13A, the landlord was entitled to recover possession of only one residential building or part. The landlord exercised the option in favour of the portion occupied by Dr. Gill, while the eviction petition against Bhupinder Singh was dismissed. The special leave petition against that order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay. Consequently, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction applications against the remaining tenants, P.K. Vasudeva and Surinder Sharma, on 20 December 1989 as infructuous. The landlady filed two civil revisions before the High Court, which were referred to a Division Bench by order dated 26 November 1990 because the referring judge doubted the correctness of the earlier decisions and highlighted the absurdity of restricting a landlord to one room or hut. The Division Bench, by order dated 20 July 1993, approved the earlier interpretation, holding that where a residential building is let out in parts, each part becomes a scheduled building and the specified landlord can avail the concession only from one part. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by special leave petition. The Supreme Court considered whether Section 13A permitted recovery of the entire residential building when let out in parts or only one part. The appellant contended that the section allows recovery of the residential building or any part or parts, and that the second proviso only prevents recovery of more than one residential or scheduled building. The Court accepted this interpretation, holding that the second proviso does not restrict the specified landlord to recovering only one part of a residential building let out in parts; it prohibits recovery of more than one residential or scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts. The words "or any part or parts of such building" in the opening clause enable recovery of the whole building or any parts. The purpose of the 1985 amendment was to provide summary eviction to retiring government employees requiring accommodation for personal use, and the provision must be interpreted to avoid absurdity and fulfil that purpose. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench judgment, and held that a specified landlord is entitled to recover possession of the entire residential building even if let out in parts to different tenants, subject to the second proviso prohibiting recovery of more than one residential or scheduled building. The eviction petitions were to be decided in accordance with this interpretation.
Headnote
A) Rent Control Law - Statutory Interpretation - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 - Section 13A - Purpose of summary eviction for specified landlords - The amendment introduced a special procedure for retiring government employees to recover residential accommodation for personal use - The reference order of the single Judge highlighted that a literal reading restricting recovery to one room or hut would defeat legislative intent and lead to absurdity - Held that the provision must be construed to fulfil the clear legislative intent of providing adequate personal accommodation after retirement (Paras 5-6). B) Rent Control Law - Right to Recover Immediate Possession - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13A, second proviso - Scope of recovery when residential building is let out in parts - High Court held that a building let out in parts makes each part a scheduled building and landlord can avail concession only from one part - Supreme Court held that the opening words "or any part or parts of such building" enable recovery of the entire building or any parts, and the second proviso only prohibits recovery of more than one residential or scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts - Held that a specified landlord is entitled to recover possession of the whole residential building even if it is let out to multiple tenants, subject to not exceeding one building (Paras 3-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a specified landlord under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 can recover possession of the entire residential building when it is let out in parts to different tenants, or is restricted to recovering possession from only one tenant/part
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench dated 20 July 1993, and held that under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 a specified landlord is entitled to recover possession of the entire residential building even if it is let out in parts to different tenants, subject to the second proviso that no person may recover possession of more than one residential or scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts; the eviction petitions were to be decided in accordance with this interpretation.
Law Points
- Section 13A of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act
- 1949 confers right on specified landlord to recover immediate possession of residential building for own occupation
- second proviso prohibits recovery of more than one residential or scheduled building
- not one part
- building let out in parts can be recovered as a whole
- purpose of 1985 Amendment is summary eviction for retiring government employees
- personal need sufficiency not to be examined in summary proceedings under Section 13A
