TARSEM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARE the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as amended ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant in a shop in Ludhiana owned by respondent No. 2 - a non-resident Indian. A petition under Section 13-B of the Act was filed by her against the petitioner for his eviction. This petition is pending in the court of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana. In this petition, it has been claimed that the shop was originally owned by her husband. He having passed away on February 8, 1978, she had inherited the property. It has been duly transferred in her name. The shop was let out on February 9, 1991. In September, 1994, by a mutual agreement, the tenancy was shifted from Shop No. 3 to Shop No. 1. A rent note was duly executed. The respondent-landlady being a Non-resident Indian has invoked the provisions of Section 13-B and claimed eviction on the ground that she wants to start her own business. On the ground of personal necessity, she has claimed eviction of the petitioner- tenant.

(3.) THE short question that arises for consideration is - Does the provision as contained in Section 13-B offend Article 14 of the Constitution ? It would be apt to notice the provision. It provides as under :-