Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs Gurdial Singh on 3 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)143PLR23
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2679, 2681, 2682 to 2686 and 2700 of 2005 arising out of ejectment petition filed by the respondent under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") against different tenants of the property owned by the said respondent in the urban area of Phagwara.
2. It is the case of the landlord that he has purchased the property in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 3.3.1970. The said property has four shops facing Loha Mandi road whereas on the rear of the shops are the residential accommodation.
3. The respondent-landlord has sought ejectment on the ground that he is a Non-Resident Indian and after staying abroad for a number of years, he has now come back to India and has decided to run his own business in the property in dispute after demolishing various construction.
4. To controvert the said ejectment petition, the tenant contested the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the landlord has not mentioned any reason or purpose to use and occupy the property in question in his pleadings and that the landlord does not have roots in Indian society as his family is permanently settled in abroad and have British citizenship. It was also pleaded that the landlord own and possess another property including residential House No. 609, Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara, and, therefore, he is not entitled to seek eviction of the tenant inducted in the said premises.
5. In evidence, after leave to contest was granted, the landlord appeared as his own witness as AW1. In the affidavit, it has been stated that he has decided to run his own business in the property in dispute and that he is not in possession of any other commercial premises within the limits of urban area of Phagwara nor has he vacated any such premises without sufficient cause. The wife of the landlord also appeared in the witness-box as AW2 and admitted that she owns a residential house measuring 8 Marlas. However, she denied that she runs business in that house because of its large area.
6. After considering the respective stand of the parties, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction and aggrieved against the said order, the tenants are in revision petition.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the tenancy in respect of each of the petitioner is in respect of separate and distinct building and, therefore, the landlord would be entitled to seek ejectment of only one tenant under Section 13-B of the Act and not in respect of all the tenants in respect of the building owned by the landlord. However. I am unable to accept the argument raised by learned Counsel for petitioner. The petitioner is a tenant over a building constructed on a plot measuring 36'x70 and 39'x83.6 Four shops are on the Loha Mandi road and on the north is the shop of one Brij Lal and on the south is godown of Gainda Mal. Section 2(a) of the Act defines "building" to mean any building or part of a building let out for any purpose. Such definition is contextual which is apparent from the following provision:-
2. Definitions:-
In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:-
(a) "building" means any building or part of a building let for any purpose whether being actually used for that purpose or not, including any land, godowns out-houses, or furniture let therewith, but does not include a room in a hotel, hostel, or boarding-house.
8. Therefore, the mere fact that each of the petitioners has been inducted in a separate defined area or in part of the premises as a tenant will not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction of the tenants from the entire building. To seek eviction, each part let out would be building so as to maintain an eviction petition under the Act. But to determine the requirement of landlord for use of the building for his bona fide personal requirement, it would be integrated building of which the tenant was inducted in part. It is not the case of the tenants that each of the portion let out has been assigned separate Municipal number and the site plans in respect of such portions were sanctioned separately. Thus, it is a case of one integrated large building portions of which were let out to different tenants. Therefore, under Section 13-B of the Act, the landlord has a right to seek ejectment from a building which is in possession of the tenants.
9. As a matter of fact, reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 13-B of the Act shows that right is given to the landlord to seek immediate possession of such building or buildings, as the case may be. The use of word "buildings" suggests that the right of the landlord to seek eviction is not restricted in respect of the premises of one tenant but in respect of more than one tenant inducted in one large integrated building. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in Sardarni Sampuran Kaur and Anr. v. Sant Singh and Anr. (1983) 85 Punjab Law Reporter 449, has held that the building as defined under Section 13-B of the Act will mean large integrated building. It was held to the following effect:-
...the definition of the word "building" in Section 2 of the Act is not in terms absolute but is subject to contextual limitations. The very opening part of the said section makes it explicit that the definition is to apply only if there is nothing repugnant in the subject or the context. Consequently, the use of the word 'building' in Section 13(3)(a)(iii) has to be viewed in its particular textual context and not with any inflexible absoluteness of the literal terms of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, it would be possible to construe the word 'building' as used in Section 13(3)(3)(a)(iii) of the Act to include the integrated larger building as a whole rather than the part thereof demised to a particular tenant alone....
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also argued that under Section 13-B of the Act, the landlord who has inducted the tenant alone entitled to seek eviction and not the person who has purchased the properly when the tenants were already in possession. The said argument is without any merit. A right to seek eviction has been given to the Non-resident Indian, who has owned the building for a period of five years. The right to seek eviction is related to building and not to tenant. The reading of the statutory provisions does not lead to any such inference so as to entitle the Non-resident Indian to seek eviction in terms of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act.
11. Consequently. I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
12. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed.
13. However, the order of ejectment passed against the petitioners shall not be executed for a period of three months from today provided the petitioners deposit the entire arrears within a fortnight and continues to deposit the monthly rent by the 10th of each month.