DHAN DEVI Vs. KISHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER RESPONDENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), has come up before us upon a reference made by M. R. A. Ansari, J, sitting on the Himachal Bench of the Delhi High Court, because the learned Judge entertained doubts about the correctness of a decision of the Controller, affirmed by the District Judge on appeal, on the strength of a Division Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Kanwar Behari Vs. Smt. Vindhya Devi (A.I.R. 1966 -Punjab 481), holding that a part of accommodation or a building. the whole of which was let under a contract of tenancy, could not be claimed on the ground of a landlord's personal need in an application under section 13 (3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act. The relevant section 13(3)(a) of the Act reads:-

(2.) Although, the word "occupation" in ground (3)(a)(i)(a) is replaced by the word "used" in the corresponding provision (3)(a)(ii) for rented land, the two words seem practically interchangeable. The word occupation used in ground (3)(a)(i)(a) could not obviously refer to the landlord's occupation in life, but must, in the context, mean his actual physical entry and possession.

(3.) It is also noticeable that section 13(3)(a)(i) does not contain four independent grounds for a landlord's claim to obtain possession of residential building. Only section 13(3)(a)(i)(d) contains a clearly separate ground. This could only arise where there is a special type of tenancy funning with an employee tenant's service under the landlord. Although there is no "link" between section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) and (b), as there is between (b) and (c), yet, it is evident that, in considering whether a landlord bonafide "requires" a residential building, so as to establish his claim under (a), the matters mentioned in (b) and (c) are also relevant and should be considered when raised. The Preamble to the Act states that it is "An Act to restrict the increase of rent of certain premises situated within the limits of urban areas, and the eviction of tenants therefrom". Obviously, the intention was to provide for a situation in which, due to shortage of accommodation in urban areas, the landlords may try to increase rents or evict tenants unreasonably. Although there is no provision in the Act for allotment of accommodation, as there is in the Control of Rent and Eviction Acts of other States, it is evident that the need for the Act arose out of shortage of houses in urban areas. Sec. 13 of the Act shows that, while it prohibits eviction of tenants except in the manner laid down in the Act. It seeks to do equity between the landlords and tenants by enabling the landlord to file an application under the provisions of section 13(3) when he requires a residential building for his own use.