Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Rent Control Case — Club Activities Not Exempt from Rent Control Laws. The definition of business under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, includes charitable activities, thus the club's use of the land fell within the Act's scope.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved appeals by the landlord against a High Court order that determined club activities did not constitute business under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The original owner, Telu Ram, had transferred occupancy rights to Bhagwan Dass, who later executed a gift deed in favor of Louis Club for running a club. After concerns about the validity of the gift deed, a lease was executed allowing the club to use the land. The Municipal Committee later altered the land's use, prompting the landlord to file for ejectment based on non-payment of rent and unauthorized use. The High Court ruled that the premises were not used for business, thus not covered by rent control laws, relying on precedents that defined business narrowly. The Supreme Court, however, found that the definition of business in the Act was broader and included activities that serve public interests, such as those of a club. The Court set aside the High Court's order, allowing the eviction petition and granting the respondents three months to vacate the premises, while also requiring the appellants to pay due taxes before using the land.

Headnote

A) Rent Control - Definition of Rented Land - Applicability of Rent Control Laws - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 2(f) - The High Court held that club activities do not constitute business, thus exempting the premises from rent control laws. The Supreme Court found that the definition of business includes charitable activities, thus the club's use of the land fell within the Act's scope. Held that the eviction petition was maintainable under the Act (Paras 1-16).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the activities of a club constitute business under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the respondents to vacate the premises within three months, while requiring the appellants to pay all due taxes before using the premises.

Law Points

  • Definition of business
  • Rent control applicability
  • Ejectment proceedings
  • Lease agreements
  • Club activities
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (08) 111

Civil Appeal No. 8238 of 2013

2021-08-17

Hemant Gupta, A.S. Bopanna

Rajinder Kumar Bansal & Ors

Municipal Committee & Ors

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding the applicability of rent control laws to club activities.

Remedy Sought

The landlord sought eviction of the club from the premises.

Filing Reason

Non-payment of rent, unauthorized use of property, and subletting without consent.

Previous Decisions

The Rent Controller had ordered ejectment, which was overturned by the High Court.

Issues

Whether club activities constitute business under the Act. Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of the term 'business'.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued that club activities should be considered business under the Act. The respondents contended that the premises were not used for business and thus exempt from rent control.

Ratio Decidendi

The definition of business under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is broad enough to include activities that serve public interests, such as those of a club.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court held that club activities do not constitute business, thus exempting the premises from rent control laws. The definition of business includes charitable activities, thus the club's use of the land fell within the Act's scope.

Procedural History

The Rent Controller ordered ejectment on 18.02.1988, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 19.03.1994. The Municipal Committee filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was allowed by the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973: Section 2(f)
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Madhya Bharat Gambling Act Search and Presumption Provisions. The Court Rejected Challenge Under Articles 13, 19, and 21, Holding Sections 6 and 8 Not Arbitrary and Sufficiently Safeguarded.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition of Oil Corporation in Octroi Abolition Case. Octroi Demands and Seizure of Depots Quashed as Municipal Council Lacked Authority After 1999 Amendment to Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965.