LACHHMAN DASS AND ANR. Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Madan Lal (hereinafter mentioned as the Tenant) was tenant of shop No. 664 situated at Bhiwani under Lachhman Dass, Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord). Under an improvement scheme notified by the Improvement Trust Bhiwani, known as Bapora Gate Development Scheme, the said shop was taken possession of by the said Improvement Trust from the tenant. This shop alongwith other buildings falling in the area of the said scheme were demolished. New shops were constructed by the Improvement Trust. The landlord applied for allotment of one shop to the Improvement Trust. He was allotted one shop by the Improvement Trust which the landlord transferred to his son, Ramesh Chander Petitioner No. 2. The tenant applied under Section 13(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as the Act) for restoration of the shop that the Improvement Trust) had allotted to the landlord in lieu of shop No. 664 from which the Improvement Trust had dispossessed him. The Rent Controller allowed the petition. An appeal against that at the instance of the landlord and his son having failed, they have come to this Court in revision challenging the order of the Courts below.

(2.) MR . R.L. Sarin, counsel for the Petitioners, has urged that the orders of the Courts below are palpably illegal as they had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for restoration in that the provisions of Sub -section (4) of Section 13 of the Act are not attracted in the case at all and cannot be taken advantage of by the tenant. He contends that the provisions of Sub -section (4) of Section 13 of the Act can be resorted to by a tenant only in cases where the landlord has obtained possession from the tenant of the building and land in pursuance of an order by the Rent Controller under the provisions mentioned in Sub -section (4) of Section 13 and not otherwise and that too when the very said building is sought to be put to any use by the landlord or the landlord lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from the said building. In the event of reconstruction of the building from which a tenant is evicted, the tenant, under Sub -section (4) of Section 13, cannot claim possession of the reconstructed building. In my opinion, there is merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners. Sub -section (4) of Section 13 of the Act is in the following terms:

(3.) A perusal of Sub -section (4) no doubt shows that the expression "in pursuance of an order" has not been used between the word 'building' and the words under sub -paragraph (iii) as has been used in the earlier part of the section in relation to the obtaining of possession under other provisions of Section 13 but that would be of no consequence in view of the later qualification of the 'tenant' by using the word "evicted" in relation to the building. The use of the world "eviction" in the statute is in a legal manner, i.e., in pursuance of execution of an order made by the Rent Controller.