REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JOGINDER PAL Appellant

V/S

NAVAL KISHORE BEHAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

V.M. DESHMUKH V. K.M. KOTHAN AND ORS. [REFERRED]
K.GOVINDARAJULU V. SAVITHRAMMA [REFERRED]
DR. SYED SIBGATHULLAH V. C.M. ABDUL AZIZ KHAN [REFERRED]
J.L.MEHTA V. SMT. HIRA DEVI [REFERRED]
BALABHADRA BEHARILAL V. PREMCHAND LALCHAND AND ORS. [REFERRED]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
MAHARAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SANKALGHAND HIMATLAL SHETH [REFERRED]
BEGA BEGUM VS. ABDUL AHAD KHAN DEAD [REFERRED]
KEWAL SINGH VS. LAJWANTI [REFERRED]
ONKAR NATH VS. VED VYAS [REFERRED]
PRABHAKARAN NAIR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU ANT [REFERRED]
ARJUN KHIAMAL MAKHIJANI PRITHDAYAL CHETANDAS VS. JAMNADAS C TULIANI:JAMNADAS C TULIANI [REFERRED]
HARBILAS RAI BANSAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
SHIV SARUP GUPTA VS. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA [REFERRED]
KRISHNA DEVI VS. PARMESHWARI DEVI [REFERRED]
NAND RANI VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MORADABAD [REFERRED]
BALAIAH VS. LACHAIAH [REFERRED]
INSTITUTE OF RADIO TECHNOLOGY VS. PANDURANG BABURAO [REFERRED]
R V DHARMALINGA MUDALIAR VS. K ANNAMALAI [REFERRED]
NANDLAL GOVERDHANDAS AND CO VS. SAMRATBAI LILACHAND SHAH [REFERRED]
RAVINDER KUMAR PUJARA VS. GIAN CHAND [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) An eviction petition filed by the landlord-respondent urging the ground for eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter the Act, for short), was dismissed by the Rent Controller but allowed by the Appellate Authority. The decree has been maintained in civil revision preferred by the tenant in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The tenant has filed this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956, by Section 2 thereof deleted the words "a non-residential building or" from the abovesaid provision. However, this amendment was held ultra vires the Constitution in Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab and Anr. - (1996) 1 SCC 1, and this Court directed that as a consequence of the amendment having been declared constitutionally invalid the original provision of the Act as was operating before the Amendment stands restored and a landlord - under the Act - can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground that he requires it for his own use. Presently, the question to be determined is - what construction should be placed on the phrase 'his own use' Should it be assigned a narrow meaning that it is the individual requirement of the landlord or in other words the requirement of the landlord and the landlord alone which is germane to the provision or should we assign a wide and liberal meaning to the expression treating it a vibrant one so as to respect the context in which it has been used feeling the pulse of the object behind the provision.

Click here to view full judgment.

JOGINDER PAL Vs. NAVAL KISHORE BEHAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address