Neta Ram vs Jiwan Lal on 17 January, 1962
This Court, in Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal (1) in
interpreting no doubt a slightly differently worded
provision in s. 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Patiala and East Punjab
States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2006 B.K. (8
of 2006 BK) held that one of the circumstances which could
be taken into account in considering the requirements of the
landlord with reference to the existing building is 'the
possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after
construction'. In the case 'before us all the Courts have
concurrently held that the requirement of the landlord is
reasonable and bona fide and that he had obtained the
necessary sanction from the municipality concerned and that
the landlord had also the means for reconstruction of the
building. If the landlord does not commence demolition of
the premises within the period specified in the order of the
Court, the tenant is given a right under s. 26(1) to issue a
notice to the landlord -of -his intention to occupy the pre-
mises from which he had been evicted and also to apply to
the Court for relief if the landlord does not comply with
his request. Again under s. 27, the tenant has got a right
to occupy the new building on its completion provided he
satisfies the requirements contained in that section. Under
s. 2 8 (I), the landlord is bound to intimate the tenant
from whom he had received a notice under s. 27 the date on
which the erection of the new building will be completed
from which date the tenant will be entitled to occupy the
same.