Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs Smt. Zenobia Bhanot on 6 November, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1990)98PLR335
JUDGMENT A.L. Bahri, J.
1. Vide this order, two Civil Revision Petitions, (Nos. 1260 and 1386 of 1989) are being disposed of. These petitions have been filed by the tenants against the landlady Smt. Zenobia Bhanot against orders of Rent Controllers, Chandigarh directing their ejectment from different portions of the same house.
2. The facts are brief and not disputed. Shri S. N. Bhanot, I.A.S., died after his retirement from Government service. His widow Smt. Zenobia Bhanot filed applications under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended, and applicable in the territory of Chandigarh, for ejectment of the present petitioners. These applications were filed on December 15,1987 but tried by different Rent Controllers Shri Birinder Singh. Rent Controller, Chandigarh decided the application filed against Dr. (Mrs ) S. K. Gill on January 27, 1989 directing her ejectment from two rooms of the house in dispute. Civil Revision No. 1386 of 1980 has been filed against the said order. Shri G.S. Sewak, Rent Controller, Chandigarh on March 15, 1989 directed ejectment of Bhupinder Singh from one room of the house in dispute and Civil Revision No. 1260 of 1989 has been filed against the said order. I have heard counsel ft r the parties.
3. The question debated has already been answered by J.V. Gupta, J. in Sohan Lal v. Col Prem Singh Grewal and Anr., (1989-2) 96 P.L.R. 139, holding therein that it is the choice of the landlord in an application under Section 13-A of the Act to seek ejectment of the particular tenant. He could evict only one of the tenants and not all under the aforesaid provision as the tenants were occupying separate portions of the building indispute. That being the position, the choice of Smt. Zenobia Bhanot was asked for during arguments and learned counsel appearing on her behalf, though challenged the correctness of the decision in Sohan Lal's case (supra), gave in the alternative the choice that the premises to be vacated by Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Gill be delivered to the landlady.
4. Learned counsel for the landlady has argued that the interpretation placed by J.V. Gupta, J on the proviso added to Section 13 A of the Act (as applicable in Punjab which is also applicable in Chandigarh) is not correct as the main Section 13 A was not taken into consideration. There is no met it in this contention .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 a position to get possession of the tetanted 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. Section 13-A of the Act reads as under:--
"13-A. 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 execution 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 and 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 a grandchild 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 toe Controller.-
(a) in the case of death of such specified landlord, before the extension of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 to the Union Territory of Chandigarh within one year of such extension;
(b) in the case of death of such specified landlord, after such commencement, but before the death 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, the expression, "retirement" means termination of service of a specified landlord otherwise than by resignation."
The emphasis has been placed by the counsel for the landlady on the concluding words of Section 13-A that right to recover 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 in order to support his argument that a landlord is entitled to take possession of parts of the building meaning thereby that those parts of the building may have let out to different tenants and thus all the tenants of a building can be made to vacate the same to enable the specified landlord to take possession thereof. Second proviso to the aforesaid section, as reproduced above, makes it abundantly clear that the main section is not to be 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. The plain language of the provision is to be considered to put harmoneous interpretation to the provision of law. The plain language as well as intention of the Legislature in enacting the aforesaid provision was that a specified landlord must have a shelter on his retirement and immediately to put into possession of building or portion thereof as let out to a tenant. Even in the case of more tenants occupying different portions of the same building, the specified landlord can be possession of the tenanted premises from one of the tenants to whom building, part or parts thereof were let out. Thus, I am in full agreement with the opinion expressed by J. V. Gupta, J. in the case of Sohan Lal(supra), referred to above, and the contention of the counsel for the landlady that she can take pessession of the tenanted premises from all the tenants is repelled.
5. Taking into consideration the option exercised by the landlady that possession of two room which are with Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Gill, one Dr.(Mrs.) S.K. Gill is dismissed. Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Gill is allowed two months' time to vacate the premises and deliver possession thereof to the landlady. There will be no order as to costs.
6. The other Civil Revision Petition No.1260 of 1989 filed by Bhupinder Singh, another tenant, is allowed for the reasons recorded above and order of his ejectment is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.