LexBHAGWAT DUTT RISHI versus RAM KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BHAGWAT DUTT RISHI A v. RAM KUMAR NOVEMBER 8, 1989 [RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND B K. RAMASWAMY, JL] I East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: Ss. 2(hh) & 13A-Eviction-Public Officer becoming landlord after superannua- lion-Whether 'specified landlord'-Whether entitled to eviction. Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 c lays down the procedure for a 'specified landlord' to seek immediate recovery of possession of his residential ·building at any time within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, which- D ever is later. Section 2(hb) of the Act defines 'specified landlord' to mean a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect Gf a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a pu°blic service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. E The appellant, who was holding a post in connection with the affairs of the State, had retired on September 30, 1981. He was member of a Mitakshara family. The house in question was tenanted out to the respondent by his father in July 1982 and upon his father dying in the following month the tenant attorned to the appellant. The amendment came into force with effect from November 16, 1985. The appellant F applied for eviction on May 13, 1986. He sought benefit of the special procedure laid down in s. 13A of the Act on the ground that all the ingredients of the definition of 'specified landlord' were satisfied. The courts below rejected the contention. The High Court relying on the ratio laid down by this Court in D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh. [1988] 1 SCC 656 and·Mrs. Winifred Ross v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca, [1984] l SCC G 288 held that the appellant could not be a 'specified landlord' . . - Dismissing the appeal by special leave, HELD: Until the landlord satisfies the test that he was a landlord qua the premises and the tenant at the time of his retirement or dis- H 93 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. A charge from service, he can not be a 'specified landlord' as defined in s. 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. [98F, 94F] In the instant case, the appellant was not the landlord of the premises in question before he superannuated. He would not, therefore, be entitled to the benefit of the special procedure laid down iu s. 13A of B the Act. [99A-B] I c D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh, [1988] I SCC 656 and Mrs. Winifred Ross v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca, [1984] 1SCC288, applied. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4567 of 1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.1988 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 1327 of 1987. Gopal Subramanium, N.D. Garg and Rajiv K. Garg for the o Appellant. E F Cl H J.K. Nayyar, Rajeev Sharma and S.K. Bisaria for-the Res- pondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J: Special leave granted. The short question for consideration in this appeal at the instance of the landlord in a proceeding for eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is as to whether the appellant before us is a specified landlord as defined in s. 2(hh) of the Act. The High Court has decided against the landlord by relying upon the deci- sion of this Court in the case of D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh, [ 1988] 1 SCC 656. When this matter came before a 2-Judge Bench on 16.8. 1988 the following order was made: "This matter may be listed before a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges two weeks hence for consideration of the question in the light of the decision of this Court in D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh, [1988] 1SCC656." Section 2(hh) of the Act defines 'specified landlord' to mean: B.D. RISH! v. RAM KUMAR !MISRA, J.] 95 "a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State." It is not disputed that the appellant was Reader to the Sessions Judge of Sangrur from where he retired on 30th of September, 1981. He was thus holding a post in connection with affairs of a State. He was member of a Mitakshara family and the house in question was tenanted out to the respondent by his father in July, 1982, and upon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.