ASHOK KUMAR versus VED PRAKASH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 695 · Decided: 17-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 695 
ASHOK KUMAR 
A 
v. 
VED PRAKASH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8417 of 2009) 
DECEMBER 17, 2009 
8 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V. S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973: 
s. 13 - Eviction of tenant from non-residential premises c 
on ground of bona fide need of landlord - HELD: Correct 
interpretation of bona fide requirement of landlord of a 
residential building must include a non-residential building as 
well - Rent Controller and High Court rightly allowed the 
' 
petition of landlord - Bonafide requirement being for purposes D 
of son of landlord, on landlord's death, question of abatement 
of eviction proceedings cannot arise at all - Abatement - East 
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - s.13. 
Precedent: 
E 
! 
Decision of Court having regard to a particular enactment 
-
HELD: Holds persuasive value while considering 
~ 
constitutionality of a similar provision albeit in a different 
legislation - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1973. 
F 
An order of eviction of the tenant from non-residential 
premises was passed by the Rent Controller under the 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 
on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. The order G 
~ was affirmed by the appellate authority and the High 
Court. In the instant appeal filed by the tenaltt, the 
question for consideration before the Court was: whether 
the landlord would be entitled to evict his tenant from a 
non-residential premises on the ground of bonafide 
H 
695 
696 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A requirement under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent 
and Eviction) Act, 1973 when s.13 of the Act provides for 
eviction of the tenant only in case of residential building? 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. Long before the Haryana Urban (Control 
of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, s.13 of the East Punjab 
Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 before its amendment, 
contained provisions for eviction of a tenant from 
residential as well as non-residential premises. In 1956, 
c the Legislature, by introducing an amendment to the East 
Punjab Rent Act, deleted the word "non-residential 
premises" from s.13 with the result that after the 
amendment, a landlord could not seek eviction of his 
tenant from non-residential premises for his bonafide 
D requirement which was originally available to the 
' 
landlord. The constitutionality of the said amendment was 
challenged and this Court declaring the amendment 
constitutionally invalid, restored the original provisions 
of the Act, to the effect that landlord can seek eviction of 
E a tenant from a non-residential building as well on the 
ground of his bona fide need. Thus, in view of the decision 
,_ 
of this Court, a landlord can seek eviction of his tenant 
on the ground of bonafide requirement not only from 
residential premises but also from non-residential 
F 
premises under the East Punjab Rent Act. As regards the 
plea of appellant that the decision and reasoning 
concerning East Punjab Rent Act, cannot apply to the 
question arising in the instant case under the Haryana 
Rent Act, suffice it to say, there is no reason as to why 
G the decision concerning one legislation cannot hold 
persuasive value for the Court, while considering the 
-f 
constitutionality of a very similar provision, albeit in a 
different legislation.[Para 10,11, 15 and 25) [702-D-H; 704-
F-G; 708-F] 
H 
Harbilas Rai Bansal vs. State of Punjab 1995 (6) Suppl. 
; 
ASHOK KUMAR v. VED PRAKASH & ORS. 
697 
SCR 178 = 1996 (1) SCC 1; Gyan Devi Anand vs. Jeevan A 
Kumar1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 1 = (1985) 2 SCC 683; Rakesh 
Vij vs. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi and others 1985 (1) 
Suppl. SCR 1 = 2005 (8) SCC 504; Mohinder Prasad Jain 
vs. Manohar Lal Jain 2006 (2) SCR 513 = 2006 (2) SCC 724, 
relied on. 
B 
State of Madhyapradesh v. G.C.Mandawar 1955 SCR 
158 =AIR 1954 SC 493 - cited. 
1.2. The correct interpretation of bonafide requirement 
of a landlord of a residential building must include a non-
C 
residential building as well. It cannot be said that an 
eviction petition filed by a landlord for eviction of a tenant 
cannot be filed u/s 13 of the Act when such eviction 
proceeding relates to a non-residential building. [Para 20 
• and 21) [707-A-B; 707-F] 
D 
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. vs. Union of India and 
another 2008 (6 ) SCR 566 = 2008 (5) SCC 287, relied on. 
Common Cause vs. Union of India and Ors.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.