Swami Nath vs Nirmal Singh

Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.11719 of 2006 and 2

11720 of 2006 as the issues involved in all the

three matters were the same. All the three

matters relate to interpretation of the

provisions of Section 13-B read with Section

18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction

Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as "the 1949

Act".

2. The common case in all these three Special

Leave Petitions is that the Respondents as Non-

Resident Indians filed petitions before the

concerned Rent Controller under Section 13-B of

the 1949 Act for eviction of the Petitioners

from their respective tenanted premises and

that all the three petitions were allowed and

eviction of the Petitioners was ordered. In

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006,

the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of

the Rent Controller, Phagwara, moved the High

Court in Civil Revision No.1146 of 2006. 3

3. In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11719 of

2006, the Petitioner being aggrieved by the

order of eviction passed by the Rent

Controller, Phillaur, moved the High Court in

Civil Revision No.5979 of 2004 against the said

order of the Rent Controller. Similarly, the

Petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Civil)

No.11720 of 2006 moved the High Court in Civil

Revision No.5978 of 2004, since both the two

matters were disposed of by a common judgment

and order dated 8th May, 2006.

4. The main challenge of the Petitioners in Civil

Revision No.5978 of 2004 and 5979 of 2004

before the High Court was that the

Respondent/landlord was not entitled to seek

ejectment of the tenants from the property in

question as he already had a shop room in his

possession measuring 12 feet x 12 feet and was

not, therefore, in bona fide need of the said 4

premises. The said stand of the

Petitioners/tenants was rejected both by the

Rent Controller as well as the High Court.

Having regard to the provisions of Section 13-B

read with Section 18-A of the 1949 Act, both

the forums were of the view that as a Non-

Resident Indian, the Respondent was entitled to

the benefit of the said provisions for recovery

of possession contained therein.

5. Similar submissions were advanced by the

Petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Civil)

No.8317 of 2006 before the High Court. In

addition, it was urged that under the

provisions of Section 13-B, the landlord was

entitled to exercise his right of option for

immediate possession only once and that having

obtained vacant possession of a shop room in

the building in question, such right had been

exhausted and the landlord was no longer 5

entitled to immediate possession as

contemplated in Section 13-B of the 1949 Act.

It was sought to be urged that a shop room in a

building would have to be treated as a separate

unit or building for the purposes of Section

13-B of the above Act as otherwise the very

object of Section 13-B would be frustrated as

the landlord would have to approach the Court

repeatedly for obtaining possession of

different parts of the building, which was not

contemplated in the said Section.

6. The High Court negated both the submissions and

while upholding the view taken by the Rent

Controller with regard to the bona fide need of

the landlord of the suit premises, the High

Court also rejected the additional submissions

regarding the interpretation of Section 13-B as

sought to be urged on behalf of the Petitioners

herein.

6

7. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Neeraj Jain,

appearing for the Petitioners in Special Leave

Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006, contended

that the High Court had failed to appreciate

the scheme and object of the 1949 Act which was

meant to be a beneficial piece of legislation

to protect the tenants from eviction from their

tenanted premises from landlords whose needs

were not as great as that of the tenants. It

was urged that Section 13-B had been

incorporated in the 1949 Act in 2001 as an

exception to the provisions of the Act to

accommodate Non-Resident Indians who after

their return from abroad needed their own

premises for the purposes of residence or even

for starting a new business. Even then the

right to immediate possession given to

landlords under Section 13-B in the special

circumstances was restricted and a choice of 7

obtaining immediate possession of the premises

was restricted to one choice only.

8. It was also urged that the provisions of Sub-

section (1) of Section 13-B would have to be

read in a manner so as not to defeat the main

purpose and object of the Act. It was

submitted that recourse could, therefore, be

had to the provisions of Section 13-B only once

which would support the theory that each shop

room or other premises in the building would

have to be treated as a separate unit and the

landlord would be entitled to make a choice as

to which of the units he wished to take

possession of immediately. It was submitted

that in these cases, since the landlord had

already obtained possession of a portion of the

building, it must be deemed that he had

exhausted his option as given under Section 13-

B and in order to evict the other tenants from 8

the premises in question, he would have to file

regular eviction petitions before the Rent

Controller concerned, who would have to deal

with the same in the regular manner without

resorting to the emergency provisions of

Section 13-B of the 1949 Act.

9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also

contended that having regard to the definition

of "Non-resident Indian" in Section 2(dd) of

the 1949 Act, such Non-resident Indian would

mean a person of Indian origin, who is either

permanently or temporarily settled outside

India for taking up employment outside India or

for carrying on a business or vocation outside

India or for any other purpose, in such

circumstances as would indicate his intention

to stay outside India for an uncertain period.

It was urged that the emphasis was on the

condition that the NRI would be staying outside 9

India and in order to avail the benefits of

Section 13-B, he would have to return to India

permanently.

10. Mr. Jain submitted that the Respondent had not

been able to establish that he was an NRI

within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of the 1949

Act and was not, therefore, entitled to the

benefits of Section 13-B thereof. Mr. Jain

reiterated his stand that having filed an

Ejectment Petition in respect of one of the

three shop rooms, the subsequent Ejectment

Petitions were not maintainable and no order of

ejectment could have been passed in respect

thereof. Learned counsel submitted that the

Rent Controller had exceeded his jurisdiction

in passing the order of ejectment in respect of

all the three matters despite the bar under the

proviso to Section 13-B(1) of the aforesaid

Act.

1

11. The submissions made on behalf of the

Petitioners were strongly opposed on behalf of

the Respondent/landlord. It was urged that the

language of Section 13-B(1) of the 1949 Act was

clear and unambiguous and the suggested

interpretation of the proviso thereof would

lead to an absurd situation if the building of

the NRI was under the possession of various

tenants and he was entitled to exercise his

right of summary proceedings only in respect of

one of the said units. It was submitted that

such an interpretation would be absolutely

contrary to the objects sought to be achieved

by the introduction of Section 13-B in the 1949

Act by way of amendment in 2001.

12. Reliance was placed on the decision of this

Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini [JT

2005 (12) SC 442] where the same question had

come up for consideration and it was observed 1

that on a plain reading of the provisions of

Section 13-B, it would be obvious that once in

a life-time possession is given to an NRI to

get one building vacated in a summary manner.

It was also submitted that the ownership of the

Respondent/landlord in respect of only one

building had not been disputed by the

Petitioners and the only contention that was

raised on their behalf was that each separate

tenancy in a building would amount to a

separate unit and after exhausting the right of

summary possession once, it was no longer

available to the NRI landlord to exercise such

an option for the second time to a particular

building, which contention had been negated by

the Courts below.

13. We have carefully considered the submissions

made on behalf of the respective parties and we

are unable to agree with the submissions made 1

on behalf of the Petitioners. The

interpretation sought to be given to the

proviso to Section 13-B(1) of the 1949 Act

would lead to an absurd situation which was not

contemplated by the legislature while

introducing the provisions of Section 13-B by

way of amendment in 2001. The very object of

the amendment would be frustrated if the narrow

and constricted meaning being canvassed on

behalf of the petitioners is to be accepted.

14. The provisions of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act

have been correctly interpreted and dealt with

in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra) and in

that view of the matter, the Special Leave

Petitions must fail and are dismissed. I.A.

No.2 of 2006 filed in SLP(C) No.11719 of 2006

by Gurdeep Ram to be impleaded as party in his

personal capacity, is also disposed of,

accordingly.

1

15. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

................................................J. (A.K. PATNAIK)

................................................J. (ANIL R. DAVE) New Delhi Dated: 07.09.2010