LABHU RAM Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition by landlords is directed against the order of District judge, Ludhiana, dated 27-5-1957, by which the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the petition for ejectment of the tenant had been affirmed.

(2.) THE tenancy in question was that of a portion of a residential house. Lahhu Ram, Payare Lal and Amrit Lal sons of Phuman Lal on 18-8-1955, applied, for ejectment of Ram Parkash, the tenant respondent, from the premises in question. The ejectment was claimed on the grounds of bona fide need to reconstruct and rebuild the premises and that the premises were required by the landlords for their personal use. The contentions of the landlords were held ill-founded and the landlords were non-suited by the Rent Controller. On appeal the learned District Judge (Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act, 1949) considering the ground as to rebuilding covered by the amending Act (Act 29 of 1956) concluded that the ground re. reconstruction as envisaged by the amending Act was not made out. The claim of the landlords on the other ground either, e. g. , that the premises were bona fide required for personal use did not succeed.

(3.) THE teamed Counsel in support of the present petition in revision has virtually repeated and reiterated the grounds taken on behalf of the petitioners before the tribunals below. In addition it was contended that as regards the ground to rebuilding, the amending Act did not apply. I am of the view that the District Judge was in error in applying the amending Act when considering the ground regarding rebuilding and reconstruction of the premises. The law applicable was the law in force at the time of the application for ejectment, e. g. , 18-8-1955. The amending Act having come into operation much later and not being retrospective in effect could not govern the facts of the instant case. Holding therefore that the East Punjab urban Rent Restriction Act (Act III of 1949) applied as it stood before the amendment, I have examined whether the ground raised could prevail. The language of Section 13 (3) (a) (iii) of the said Act is to the effect that if the landlord requires the premises for re-erection and rebuilding or for re-placement of another building, it would be an effective ground for ejectment. Question therefore that arises for determination is what is the true meaning of word "requires. " Does it convey that a mere desire of the landlord to rebuild or reconstruct is enough or is it that the need of the landlord so to rebuild is to be decided upon by the Court keeping in view some objective test. In Ram Chander v. Kidar Nath, 1954-56 Pun LR 18 : (AIR 1954 Punj. 135), Kapur, J. held that wish and desire of the landlord to re-build without any further enquiry was enough to sustain the ground. With all respects this construction is not possible keeping in view the object and spirit of the enactment and the provisions in question. I had an occasion to express myself in this behalf in Bua Das v. Piare Lal, Civil Revn. No. 107 of 1957, D/- 17-9-1958 : (AIR 1959 Punj 23), I was and am of the view that the judge of whether the landlord required the premises for reconstruction etc. , was the Rent Controller, for otherwise, as it would be apparent, the landlord would have an absolute licence. He was merely to aver that he required the building for reconstruction and he would get rid of the tenant. In considering these provisions it is necessary to take into account the aims and objects and purpose of the enactment (the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 ). This piece of legislation was brought into existence largely to safeguard the interests of the tenants. To hold that the desire of the landlord (may be based on a mere whim for that could not be excluded) would be effective as a ground for ejectment would be to render the Act wholly purposeless and defeated of its objects. Both for the spirit of the enactment in question and. on the language employed in the relevant provision -- Section 13 (3) (a) (in) -- the word 'required" could not he held as synonymous of "desire. " "required" would import something more than the mere desire and would call for invocation of an outside authority who would give the verdict that in a given case for some objective standards the need was genuine and the tests had been satisfied. The observations of Kapur, J. , in 1954-56 Punj LR 18 : (AIR 1954 Punj 135), had been considered in another judgment, Mangtoo Ram v. Girdhari Lal, Civil Revn. No : 346 of 1954 (Punj), by Chief Justice Bhandari and the conclusions arrived at were to somewhat similar effect as found by me in Civil Revn. No : 107 of 1957. D/- 17-9-1958 : (AIR 1959 Punj 23 ).