BABU RAM GOPAL AND OTHERS versus MATHRA DASS

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 28-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BABU RAM GOPAL AND OTHERS 
v. 
MATHRA DASS 
FEBRUARY 28, 1990 
B 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND V. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 
1949: Section 
I3(2)(v)-Tenant-Temporarily 
suspending 
actual 
physical user of premises-Whether liable for eviction-Whether non-
occupation must continue till the date of filing of eviction application. 
C 
INTERPRETATION 
OF 
STATUTES: External 
aids-
Comparison with Rent Acts of other States~Not commended. 
On an application filed by the respondent-landlord in March 
1973 for eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground that for a 
b continuous period of more than four months the appellant had ceased to 
occupy the shop during 1969-71, the Rent Controller passed a decree· 
for eviction under Section 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction 
Act, 1949. The appellate authority affirmed the decree. The High Court 
rejected the tenant's appeal. 
· 
E 
In the appeal before this Court, the appellant-tenant contended 
that though the shop had remained closed for a temporary period, it 
was in his effective control and that since the non-occupation did not~ 
continue when the eviction petition was filed, the ground mentioned in 
Section 13(2)(v) had not been made out. 
\ 
F 
On behalf of respondent-landlord, it was contended that sim·; in,a 
number of Rent Acts, the ground specifically required such non-
occupation for a period immediately preceding the date on which the 
ejectment application was filed, the Act which did not use identical 
language, should be interpreted differently. 
~ 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 If a tenant stops the business which he is carrying on 
in a shop and closes the premises continuously for a period of four 
months without a reasonable cause he will be liable for eviction. How-
ever, the non-occupation of the premises by a tenant must continue till 
H the date o~filing of application for his eviction on the ground covered by 
s. 13(2)(v).' [739D] 
736 
/ 
'r 
I 
B.R. GOPAL v. MATIIRA DASS 
737 
1.2 The reason of inclnding clause (v) in s. 13(2) is to ensure 
that buildings, which are scarce in number specially in the towns, 
necessitating rent control legislation, do not remain unused at the 
instance of tenants who do not actually need them. A tenant who is in 
possession of a building in the legal sense only cannot be said to be in 
occupation thereof for the purpose ofs. 13(2)(v); otherwise a question of 
his eviction as envisaged in that section would not arise. The section, by 
making provisions for his ejectment, assumes that he is in possession, 
but, still includes cessation of occupation as one of the grounds. The 
clause, therefore, has to be interpreted in this background and it must 
take colour from the context. [739B-C) 
However, the use of present perfect tense in the words 'has ceased 
to occupy' contemplates a period even connecting in some way with the 
present time. [74IA) 
Goppulal v. Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji & Anr., [1969) 
l SCC 792, relied on. 
V. Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, [1980) I SCR 334 and 
Gajanan Dattatraya v. Sheroani Hosang Patel & Ors., [1976) l SCR 
535, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
I. 3 Though a comparison of the language of the Act with that of 
other Rent Acts specifically indicating that the period of non-occupation 
E 
should be one immediately preceding the suit supports the view that the 
period of non-occupation need not subsist at the date of the suit, that 
alone does not outweigh the other relevant circumstances. If, on the 
other hand, provisions of several other Acts are examined it would be 
seen that the Section has been framed in such a way which avoids use of 
present perfect tense. Besides, comparing statutes of different States is 
F 
not to be commended because similarity or variation in the laws of 
different States is not necessarily indicating of a kindered or different 
intention. [741B-D) 
Nathia Agarwalla and Another v. Musst. Jahanara Begum and 
Others, [1966] 3 SCR 926, followed. 
G 
In the circumstances, the decision of the courts below that the 
tenant is liable to be ejected is set aside. [741G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 823 
~ml. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] I S.C.R. 
From the Jud8Jlle_nt and Order dated 16.10.1979 of the Punjab 
& 1;-Iaryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 2300 of 1979. 
V.C. Mahajan (NP), Ms. Urmila Kapoor, Ms. S. Janani and 
Ms. Meenakashi for the Appellant. 
M.L. V

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