ATTAR SINGH versus INDER KUMAR

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 50 · Decided: 04-11-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A'ITAR SINGH 
A 
l'. 
INDER Kt;MAR 
Norember 4, 1966 
[K. ?\. WANCHOO, G. K. MnrER AND C.A. VAIDIAl.INGAM, J.J.] 
B 
Easr P1111jab Urban Resrrictio11 Acr (Ill of 1949)--S. 13(3)(a)(ii)-
scope of-Wherh.er ejectment order can be obtained by land/ora for any 
purpose "far his 01vr1 use''--Or 011/y for purposes of business or trade. 
The appellant was the tenant of certain land which was "rented land" 
wilhin the meaning of s. 2(f) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 
Act Ill of 19~9, and which was taken by him for the purpose of a fu~· 
C 
wood stall. 
The respondent filed an applicatio.1 for the ejectment of the 
appellant from the hnd mainly on the ground that he needed the land 
himself to erect a residential house and claimed that be was entitled te 
an order of ejectment under s. !3(3)(a) (ii) 
of the 
Act. The Rent 
Controller dismissed the application on the view tnat the landlord could 
only obtain an order under s. l1(3)(a)(ii) to have the land vacated if he 
needed it for a business purpose. 
However, 
the 
Appellate 
authodty 
allowed the appeal holding that it was open to the landlord to get 
a 
D 
tenant ejected whatever may be the purpose for which he required 
the 
)and for his O\VD use. 
The decision was upheld in revision by the High 
Coun. 
Oo appeal to this Court, 
HELD : As the respondent landlord roquired the land not for busine'5 
or trade principally but only for constructing a house for himself, he wa.• 
E 
not entitled to eject the appellant under s. 13(3)(a)(ii). (55 DJ 
Although sub-sclause (a) of s.13(3)(a)(ii) which provides for 
the 
landlord to be put in posse~•ion of the land if he requires it "for his own 
use" is not qualified, the fact that sub-els. (b) 
and (c) require that the 
landlord should not be in possession of any rented land for his O\\n busi-
ness and should not have ~iven up possession of any other rented land, 
i.e., land which he was pnncipally using for business, shows that he can 
F 
only take advantage of sub-cl. (a) if he is able to show that he requires 
the rented land for business. Otherwise the restrictions contained in sub-
cl, (b) and sub-cl. (c) would become meaninglesq, 
Reading sub-els. (a) 
(b) and (c) together tliere can be no doubt tbat sub-cl. (a) is restricted 
to land required for bu•ine~' or trade. [54 G-55 G] 
Municipal Commitiee, Abohar v. Dau/at Ram, I.L.R. 
[1959] Punjab 
1131; overruled. 
Crv11. APPELLATE JL>1us1>1n10~ : Civil Appeal No. 2009 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
July 15, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision 1077 of 
1966. 
Gopal Singh, for the appellant. 
S. L. Chhiher and M. L. Chhiher, for the respondent. 
G 
H 
.A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ATTAR SINGH v. INDER KUMAR (Wanchoo, /.) 
51 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wancboo, J. The main question raised in this appeal by spe-
cial leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court is the inter-
pretation ofs. 13 (3) (a) (ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric-
tion Act, No. III of 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Brief 
facts necessary for determination of this question are these. The 
appellant was the tenant of certain lane! at Lahori Gate, Patiala. 
It is not in dispute that the land in question is "rented land" within 
the meaning of s. 2 (f) of the Act inasmuch as the land was taken by 
the appellant for the purpose of a firewo0d stall. The original 
owner of the land became an evacuee, and eventually the respon-
dent purchased the land from the Managing Officer and a sale 
certificate was issued in his favour on May 31, 1963. The appellant 
thus became the respondent's tenant. Thereafte1 the respondent 
filed an application for the ejectment of the appellant on a number 
of grounds. One of the grounds in support of the claim for eject-
ment was that the respondent needed the land for erection of a 
residential house. 
It is this ground with which we are mainly con-
cerned in the present appeal. The case of the appellant on the 
other hand was that even if the respondent required the land for 
construction of a residential house he could not be given an order of 
ejectment under s. 13 (3) (a) (ii). 
That is how the interpretation of 
this provision mainly arises in the present appeal. 
The Rent Controller held that it was clear that the respondent 
did not need the land for running any business and only needed it 
for constructing a residential house for himself. He took the view 
that rented land could o

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