ZENOBIA BHANOT Vs. SURINDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECTION 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, inserted vide East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Act) confers a right on a public servant, in service or retired, to recover immediate possession of a residential area of scheduled building if he needs such building for his own use and has no other suitable accommodation in the local area, if he applies within one-year from the date of retirement, or within one year from the commencement of the Act for a direction in that regard. In case of death of a specified landlord; proviso, to Section 13-A provides that the widow or widower of such specified landlord and in the case of death of such widow or widower, a child or a grand-child or a widowed daughter-in-law who was dependent upon such specified landlord at the time of his death shall be entitled to make an application to the Controller to recover immediate possession of the residential building. In the present case, on the death of her husband, S. N. Bhanot, as IAS Officer, Smt. Zenobia Bhanot filed four petitions Under Section 13-A of the Act for eviction of four tenants, namely, Dr. S. K. Gill, Bhupinder Singh, Surinder Sharma and P. K. Vasudeva. Eviction application filed against Dr. S. K. Gill and Bhupinder Singh were decided by the Rent Controller in favour of the landlady. Both the tenants being not satisfied with the order of the Rent Controller filed two revision petitions, i. e. Civil Revisions No. 1386 and 1260 of 1989, in this Court. In the revision petitions, it was contended by the tenants that under second proviso to Section 13-A of the Act, landlady is entitled to seek ejectment of only one tenant and in case the building has been let out in part or parts to various tenants, the landlady can only claim eviction of one tenant from one part of the building and not from all parts of the building. For this, reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Sohan Lal of Patiala v. Col. Prem Singh Grewal and Anr. , (1989-2)96 P. L. R. 139. Keeping in view the interpretation of Section 13-A of the Act in Sohan Lal's case. A. L. Bahri, J, (as his Lordship then was) on 6. 11. 1989 gave an option to the landlady to make a choice in regard to recovery of possession of the portions occupied by Dr. S. K. Gill and Bhupinder Singh. Landlady opted to occupy the portion of the house occupied by Dr. S. K. Gill. On making her choice, Civil Revision No. 1386 of 1989 filed by Dr. S. K. Gill was dismissed, whereas Civil Revision No. 1260 of 1989 filed by Bhupinder Singh was allowed. In consequence of the decision given in the case of Bhupinder Singh, the other two eviction applications pending against other two tenants, namely, Surinder Sharma and P. K. Vasudeva, were dismissed by the Rent Controller. Rent Controller was of the view that eviction applications pending against Surinder Sharma and P. K. Vasudeva are not maintainable as the landlady has already made a choice for occupying the portion in occupation of Dr. S. K. Gill. Against the orders of the Rent Controller dismissing her eviction applications being not maintainable, landlady filed Civil Revisions No. 3025 and 3040 of 1990 in this Court. Both the revision petitions came up for hearing on 26. 11. 1990 before S. S. Sodhi, J, (as his Lordship then was) On consideration of the judgments given in Sohan Lal's and Bhupinder Singh's, (1990-2)98 P. L. R. 335 cases, the learned Judge decided to refer the mailer to a larger Bench. On reference, the Division Bench vide judgment dated 20. 7. 1992 decided the reference in favour of the tenants upholding the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Sohan Lal's case. Against the judgment of the Division Bench. Landlady filed two Special Leave Petitions in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in both the S. L. P. s, leave was granted on 11. 2. 1990. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court could decide the appeals, revision petitions were put up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 10. 5. 1993. Counsel for the landlady contended before the learned Judge that leave in Special Leave Petitions against order has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the revision petitions be kept pending till final decision is given by the Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge however, dismissed the revision petitions on finding that the view taken in Sohan Lal's and Bhupinder Singh's cases has been upheld by the Division bench and the question of law has been answered against the landlady. Civil Appeals No. 607 and 608 of 1993 were allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and decision in this regard is reported as Zenobia Bhanot v. P. K. Vasudeva and Anr. , (1996-1)112 P. L. R. 220 (S. C. ). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held : "there are no words in Section 13-A of the Act to import the idea that if a residential building is let out in parts, each part will become a residential building thereby fettering the 'specified landlord' to avail the concession only from a part. Section 13a, which gives a special right to the landlord, is to enable him to exercise the right to recover the residential building for his own occupation, if he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation. In interpreting the Section, it is a far-cry to state, that the question as to whether the accommodation with the landlord after taking possession from one of the tenants is sufficient for his personal requirement or not, is not to be gone into in such proceedings. The right is given to the landlord, in case where he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation to recover possession of his residential building. If the building is let out in parts, any or all such parts can also be recovered, since the part or parts let out from part of the building. Section 13a clearly points out that the landlord has an option to get the recovery (the immediate possession) of the said residential building or any part or parts of such building, in a case where the building is let out in parts. The option so given to the landlord by the concluding words in the opening clause of Section 13a, in cases where the building is let out in part or parts, either to recover the whole building or to recover in parts or parts thereof is reinforced by the second proviso. By no stretch of reasoning, the second proviso to Section 13a can be construed as nullifying the main provision of Section 13a and, in particular, the concluding words in the opening clause of Section 13a whereby the option is given to the landlord to recover the possession of residential building itself or any part or parts thereof in cases where the building is let out in part or parts. We hold that the reasoning and conclusion to the contrary in the two reported judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and also in the judgments under appeal dated 20. 7. 1992 are clearly erroneous and unjustified. " In consequence of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the landlady, Zenobia Bhanot, the present miscellaneous applications have been filed for recalling order dated 10. 5. 1993 passed by this Court dismissing the revision petitions and for setting aside the orders of the Rent Controller dismissing the evicting applications filed by her, being not maintainable. On notice of the miscellaneous applications, counsel for the tenants have raised a preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the applications on the ground that the landlady had not preferred any appeal against judgment dated 10. 5. 1993 of this Court whereby the revision petitions preferred by the landlady were dismissed. I find no merit in the preliminary objection. In the two revision petitions, the only point for consideration was as to whether the law laid down in Sohan Lal's and Bhupinder Singh's cases is correct or not. The Division Bench on reference, held that when a residential building is let out in part or parts, each part will become a residential building enabling the 'specified landlord' to avail the concession only from a part and the question as to whether the accommodation with the landlord after taking possession from one of the tenants is sufficient for his personal requirement or not. is not to be gone into in such proceedings. As noticed earlier, in appeals against the judgment of the Division bench, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that Section 13-A of the Act, construed as a whole, does not warrant the conclusion arrived at in the decision given by the Division bench. Appeals of the landlady have been decided in her favour and the consequence of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to restore eviction applications with a direction to the Rent Controller to decide the same in accordance with law. Consequently, order dated 10. 5. 1993 passed in Civil Revisions No. 3025 and 3040 of 1990 is hereby recalled. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision petitions have been taken on Board and counsel heard on merits.

(2.) COUNSEL for the parties have conceded that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the matter is to be remitted to the Rent Controller for deciding the eviction applications afresh. Consequently order dated 20. 12. 1989 of the Rent Controller impugned in Civil Revisions No. 3025 and 3040 of 1990 are set aside. The revision petitions shall stand allowed. Rent Controller is directed to take a final decision on the applications of the tenants, seeking leave to defend the eviction applications. Since the eviction applications were filed way back in 1987, Rent Controller is further directed to decide the applications seeking leave to defend the eviction applications, within one month from the date of appearance of parties before him. In case leave is granted, the Rent Controller shall decide the eviction applications within six months thereafter. No costs.