LexAJIT SINGH & ANR. versus JIT RAM & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R 555 --i AJIT SINGH & ANR. A v. JIT RAM & ANR. (Civil Appeal No.5680 of 2008} SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 B )< .J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] East Punjab Urban eent Restriction Act, 1949: s. 13(3)(ii) - Shop - Eviction for personal use of landlord's c son - Held: In eviction petition, son must aver and prove his case of personal requirement. s. 13(3)(ii) - Eviction from shop - Plea of tenant that par- ... tion of shop was used for residential purposes - Held: Not .., tenable . D ___ .,. Revisional jurisdiction - Interference with findings of fact - Held: Called for, only when findings are found to be per- verse or arbitrary. The appellants were father and son. The appellant E no.1-son was the owner of the suit shop on the basis of a family partition and appellant no.2 was the landlord of the said shop. Prior to the family partition, the appellant no.2 was the owner and landlord of the said shop. Respondent nos.1 and 2 were also father and son. F ~ Respondent no.1, father was inducted as tenant in respect of the said shop on monthly rent of Rs.500/-. ' The appellants filed eviction petition against respon- ... dents on the ground of sub-letting, non-payment of rent and also for bonafide requirement for personal use and occupa- G tion of the appellant no.1. Rent Controller held that the re- spondents were not defaulters in payment of rent and the -~ ground for personal necessity was not made out; how- ever there was relationship of landlord tenant between 555 H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A the parties as the respondents in their examination-in-chief admitted that the appellant no.2 was the owner of the said shop who had given the same to the appellant no.1 by way of family partition. Accordingly Rent Controller held that the appellants were entitled to evict the respondents B only on the ground of sub-letting as the said shop was sub-let by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 without the consent of the appellants. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by respondents and also the cross objections of the appel- C lants and directed the eviction of the respondents from the said shop on the ground of personal necessity by the appellants. The High Court in exercise of its revisional power 0 set aside the order of eviction on the ground that the ap- pellant no.2 failed to prove the ingredients as required under s.13(3)(ii) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949; and that the averments made in the eviction petition were only to the extent of personal need of ap- E pellant no.1-son and did not relate to the personal require- ment of the appellant no.2, who was also the landlord of the said shop. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court in the exercise of its F revisional power under the East Punjab Urban Rent Re- striction Act, 1949 was not entitled to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority on the question of bonafide requirement of the said shop at the instance of the appellants. Since the findings arrived G at by the Appellate Authority on the question of bonafide requirement was set aside by the High Court in the exer- cise of its revisional power under the Rent Act, the evic- tion of the respondents from the said shop therefore rests only on the ground whether the pleadings made by the H appellants in their eviction petition would satisfy the re- y- -~· AJIT SINGH & ANR. v. JIT RAM & ANR. 557. quirement of s.13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Bengal Rent Restric- A tion Act, 1949. The pleadings made by the appellants in the eviction petition must therefore be looked into in depth and in detail. A plain reading of s.13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act show that in order to get an order of eviction under said sec- tion, the landlord had to aver and prove that he required B the said shop for his own use as the said shop was a non-residential building. [Paras 8, 9] [563-G,H, 564 A-B] Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397 - relied on. 1.2. A non-residential premises, if required by a son for user by him would cover the requirement of words used in the Section, i.e. "for his own use" in reference to c a landlord. The requirements as laid down in s.13(3)(a)(ii)(b) and (c) of the Act has to be interpreted in 0 the same manner to hold that (a) the son of the landlord has to plead in the eviction petition that, (b) he is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.