HIMMAT RAM Vs. JAMNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurgoan, dated Oct., 1, 1981, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, directing his ejectment from the premises, in dispute, was upheld.

(2.) The tenant was inducted on the premises, in dispute, on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- by Atma Chand who died on Dec. 29, 1962. The landlords- respondents, who are his successors-in-interest, thus became the landlords qua the tenant and the latter continued paying the rent to them. The eviction application against him was filed on Aug. 25, 1977 and his ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlords required the premises for their own use and occupation. Suresh Kumar and Vijay Kumar, landlords, wanted to run the book binding business therein in order earn their livelihood. Subsequent to the filing of the eviction application, the landlords amended the application to allege, in the light of the provisions of S. 13(3A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (Hereinafter called the Act), that Vijay Kumar, landlord was a minor at the time his father Atma Chand died and that he required the premises for running the business of book binding and stationery therein. Vijay Kumar, landlord, who appeared as A. W. 4, stated that he was born on Oct. 20, 1959, and his father had died on Dec. 29, 1962. The learned Rent Controller after recording the learned counsel, came to the conclusion that Vijay Kuma, landlord, required the premises, in question, for his own for running the business of book binding and stationery. Consequent upon this finding, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. in appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed this finding of the rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order of eviction passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same he has come up in revision to this Court. This petition was mainly admitted as it involved the interpretation of S. 13(3A) of the Act, which is as follows :- "In the case of a non-residential building, a landlord who stands retried or discharged from the Armed Forces of the Union of India or who was a minor son at the time of death of the deceased landlord and requires it for his personal use, may, within a period of three years from the date of retirement or discharge or attaining the age of eighteen years, as the case may be, apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession; Provided that where the landlord has obtained possession of a nonresidential building under this sub-section, he shall not be entitled to apply again for the possession of any other non-residential building of the same class." This amendment to the Act was introduced by Act No. XVI of 1978. Here, it will be relevant to produce the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Bill, 1978, which after its passing by the Legislature, culminated into bringing the abovesaid Amendment Act on the statute book. It reads : "The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, was enforced from 27th April, 1973, by repealing the East Punjab April, 1973, by repealing the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. By virtue of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of S. 1 of the said Act, only the 'residential buildings' have been granted exemption for a period of ten years from the date of their completion whereas non-residential buildings and rented lands completed/let out after 31st March, 1962, have been left out of the purview of the Act. It has caused a great hardship to the tenants of non-residential buildings and rented lands. To remove rigours from various provisions of the Act, it has been considered just and proper that among other things the provisions of the Act may be made applicable to non-residential buildings as well. The power of the Controller as well as that of the appellate and revision authority are proposed to be restored to the judiciary. It is also proposed that a right be also given to specified categories of persons, such as ex-servicemen and fatherless minor son to apply for eviction of tenant from non-residential building for their own use; and that a tenant be given a right to deposit the rent in the Court in case the landlord refuses to accept the rent Hence the Bill."

(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant contended that the provisions of S. 13 (3A) of the Act, only contemplate a minor son of a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the Armed Forces of the Union of India who can apply for the eviction of the tenant under these provisions. In other words, according to the learned counsel, it does not mean that any minor son of a landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant under the abovesaid provisions,. It was further argued that S. 13(3A) of the Act, is applicable to the case of such a landlord only who had only one minor son at the time of his death and in a case, where there were other sons, in addition to a minor son, who may be major at the time of the death of a landlord, then, the said provision has no applicability.