KESHO RAM AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of civil appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions, under Article 32 of the Constitution, validity of S. 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the Notification No. 3205-LD- 74/3614 dated 24/09/1974 issued thereunder by the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh, granting exemption from S. 13 of the Act to buildings constructed in the urban area of Chandigarh for a period of five years have been challenged.

(2.) The appellants in the appeals as well as the petitioners in the special leave petitions and petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, are tenants of buildings situate within the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The buildings occupied by the appellants/petitioners as tenants were exempted from the operation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for a period of five years under the impugned Notification dated 24/09/1974. The landlords of these buildings filed suitsfor eviction in the civil court, against the tenants. During the pendency of suits five years period expired, thereupon, the tenants raised objection that the suits could not be decreed in view of the provisions of S. 13 of the Act. Some of the tenants filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High court challenging the jurisdiction of the civil court to proceed with the suits or to pass decree. of eviction against them on the ground that on expiry of five years period of exemption S. 13 of the Act became applicable and the civil court ceased to have jurisdiction. The High court repelled the tenants contentions and dismissed their petitions. The tenants filed civil appeals, special leave petitions in this court challenging the correctness of the order of the High court. Some of the tenants against whom suit is pending before the trial court approached this court by means of petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the proceedings taken by the landlords for their eviction. Since all these cases involve common questions the same are being disposed of by a common order.

(3.) The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeks to regulate and restrict the increase of rent of premises situate within the urban areas and the eviction of tenants therefrom. No landlord of a building situate in an urban area to which the provisions of the Act apply is free to charge rent from the tenants according to his sweet will, or to evict a tenant by filing suit by terminating tenancy, in view of the provisions of the Act placing restrictions on the landlords rights. The provisions of the Act were applied and extended to the urban area of the Union Territory of Chandigarh by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974. On such extension all buildings situate in the urban area of Chandigarh, became subject to the provisions of the said Act, with the result landlords right to charge rent or to evict tenants at their sweet will are curtailed and regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The object of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is to provide safeguards to tenants against exploitation by landlords who seek to take undue advantage of the pressing need for accommodation. The provisions of the Act provide for fixation of fair rent and prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants. S. 4 to 9 provide for fixation of rent, its recovery, enhancement and other allied matters relating to rent. S. 10 enjoins the landlords not to interfere with the amenities enjoyed by the tenants. S. 11 prohibits conversion of a residential building into a non-residential building except with the written permission of the Controller appointed under the Act. S. 12 mandates a landlord to make necessary repairs in the building let out to a tenant, and on his failure, it is open to the tenant to carry out repairs with the permission of the Controller and the cost thereof may be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord. S. 13 places an embargo on the landlords right to get his tenant evicted or to obtain possession of the building. No decree for eviction against a tenant can be executed except in accordance with the provisions of the section. A landlord seeking to evict a tenant is required to apply to the Controller appointed under the Act, and if the Controller after giving opportunity to the tenant is satisfied that the grounds set out in S. 13 (2 and (3 are made out, he may make order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. The remaining provisions of the Act deal with appeals, revisions, and State governments powers to appoint Appellate Authority and other allied matters. Under the scheme of the Act a tenant of a building in urban area to which the Act applies, cannot be evicted from the rented building or land except in accordance with the provisions of S. 13 of the Act and the civil court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree of eviction or to execute the same against a tenant.