High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision petition regarding eviction for personal necessity. The court held that settling a grandson in business falls within the expression "for his own use" under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Revision petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR-456-2012 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
:::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-456-2012 (O&M) Date of decision:03.02.2012 Harmandeep Gaur ...Petitioner Versus Rajan and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Ropak Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The tenant is in revision against orders of the Courts below by which the eviction petition filed by the landlady on the ground of personal necessity to settle her grandson in the business in the demised premises (shop), has been allowed.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that the word “for his own use” in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] would not apply to the requirement of the grandson.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
In the case of Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, 2002(2) PLR 625, the Supreme Court has held as under:
“24. We are of the opinion that the expression `for his own use' as occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act cannot be narrowly construed. The expression must be assigned a wider, liberal and practical meaning. The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must
CR-456-2012 (O&M)
[ 2 ]
:::::::
for himself require the accommodation and to fulfill the requirement he must himself physically occupy the premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use. In the several decided cases referred to hereinabove we have found the pari materia provisions being interpreted so as to include the requirement of the wife, husband, sister, children including son, daughter, a widowed daughter and her son, nephew, coparceners, members of family and dependents and kith and kin in the requirement of landlord as “his” or “his own” requirement and user. Keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire: (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-relation or identity nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the abovesaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a Chartered Accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his
CR-456-2012 (O&M)
[ 3 ]
:::::::
best to see his son economically independent. The landlord is not going to let out the premises to his son and though the son would run his office in the premises the possession would continue with the landlord and in a sense the actual occupation by the son would be the occupation by the landlord himself. It is the landlord who requires the premises for his son and in substance the user would be by landlord for his son's office. The case squarely falls within the scope of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act.”
In this regard, reference could also be had to decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Murli Dhar v. Xith Additional District Judge, Meerut, 1997(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 430, decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ishwari Singh v. Shyam Sundar Prasad and others, 2005(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 380, this Court in S.P.Sethi v. R.R.Gulati and others, 2006(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 205, Ram Gopal v. Babu Singh, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 671 and of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Shri Ochhi Ram v. Shri Moti Ram, 1979(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 116.
In view of the above, I am of the considered view that requirement for the grandson would also come within the expression “for his own use”.
No other point has been raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
February 03, 2012 vinod*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the phrase "for his own use" in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) extends to accommodating a grandson settling in business.
Whether a revision petition against eviction orders on ground of personal necessity for a grandson has merit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore BehalRelied on¶13
Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, 2002(2) PLR 625
Murli Dhar v. Xith Additional District Judge, MeerutReferred¶23
Murli Dhar v. Xith Additional District Judge, Meerut, 1997(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 430
Ishwari Singh v. Shyam Sundar Prasad and othersReferred¶23
Ishwari Singh v. Shyam Sundar Prasad and others, 2005(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 380
S.P.Sethi v. R.R.Gulati and othersReferred¶23
S.P.Sethi v. R.R.Gulati and others, 2006(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 205
Ram Gopal v. Babu SinghReferred¶23
Ram Gopal v. Babu Singh, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 671
Shri Ochhi Ram v. Shri Moti RamReferred¶23
Shri Ochhi Ram v. Shri Moti Ram, 1979(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 116
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harmandeep Gaur
Rajan
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
