KRISHAN LAL Vs. GURMIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity the Act) challenges concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below that the premises in dispute is liable to be handed over to the landlady-respondent because the necessity of her son has been established on record. It has been found that the son of the landlady-respondent, who is a photographer wishes to start business of photography and he has got training of photography business. It has further been held that the landlady-respondent has got no other shop in her possession in the concerned urban area, where the shop is situated. No mala fide has been attributed to the claim made by the landlady-respondent.

(2.) MR . Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(iv) do not contemplate the eviction of a tenant from the rental premises unless it is shown that the residential building is required by the landlord for his son to be used as an office/consulting room to start his practice as a lawyer or a registered medical practitioner. According to the learned counsel, the personal necessity of the landlady should be confined to the grounds specified by Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramkubai since deceased by LRs. v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak, 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 213 SC : 1999(6) SCC 540. The learned counsel has argued that the Supreme Court has taken the view that son of the landlady wanted to establish Karyana business in the rented shop which was a ground specified under Section 3(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. He has also placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the case of The Ferozepur Cooperative Printing and Publishing Society Ltd. v. Roshan Lal and another, 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 229 (P&H) : 2000(3) PLR 277 and Ravinder Kumar v. Gian Chand, 1986(2) RCR(Rent) 333 (P&H) : AIR 1987 P&H 31. According to the learned counsel if the ratio of these judgments are applied to the facts of the present case, the son of the landlady-respondent being a photographer is not covered by the afore-mentioned provision. The learned counsel urged that the intention of the legislature should be given full effect by confining the eviction to the necessity of a son who is lawyer or registered medical practitioner.

(3.) A perusal of the above Section would show that a landlord is within his right to make an application to the Rent Controller for eviction of his tenant in respect of a residential or scheduled building if he requires it for his own occupation subject to fulfilling other conditions. It is further evident from the perusal of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act that in case of non- residential building or rented land such an application can be filed if the non-residential building or rented land is required by the landlord for his own use subject to certain conditions. Similarly, Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act also shows that even in respect of any building as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act the eviction application could be filed by the landlord on the ground that such a building is required to be used as an office or consultation room by the son of the landlord who is a lawyer or registered medical practitioner.