FIRMS AMAR NATH BASHESHAR DASS versus TEK CHAND

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 922 · Decided: 21-03-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

FetMS AMAR NATH BASHESHAR DASS . 
'.v. 
·TEK ClfAND 
March 21, 1972-
H 
P JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J 
[K. S. 
EGDE, 
• 
. 
u b 
Rtlll Rtr~riction Act, 1949, Ss. J and 13 read with 
,PficllnJ:!b d '1 adnJuly 13 · l965..,..-Exemption from provision of &ection 13 
;11011 at ton a e 
• 
· 1 
· · 
{il d 
·.' · 
.5 
hefh · 
b claimtd in CP.l't.t where sull or ttvrctlon 
e 
ww1t11 
;ars e;, ccC::mpletion of building but d.:cree obtained after" expiry of mid 
·' year:t • 
. Under the P~njab Rent. Restric~on, Ac_t, 1949 a landlord can evict 
a tenant only on the grounds and ac,ordmg to the procedullJ provided 
. A 
c 
in ·section 13 of the Act. Section 3 of the A.ct provides. for exemption t~ 
be ~ranted bv Government from the opel':ltlon of sect1on 13. By noli· 
ficauon dated July 30. 1965 t!YJ Government of Punjab granted 
su::h 
exemption in rcsp:ct of building constructed 
during ·the year 1959 to 
D 
J963 !or a period of S years from the date of their completion, on the 
,condition that during the afores~tid period of exemption suits for eject· 
·ment of tenants in respect of those buildings "were or are" institutes in 
.civil courts and dec~ ol e:ectment "were or are" passed. The re.spon· 
. dent had let out to the appellant a building which was completed in 1960. _ ·- · 
A. tuit for ejectment of the appellant was tiled in 1963 and deere:: '11as ob-
tamed in l ~69. In proce~diog for execution the question was whether the 
d~r!_e, havmg hcq1 obtam-:u m~re thon 5 years after completion of the 
E --
~u•ldmg, was exempt from operation of section 13. The High. Court 
'" 5eCOnd np~al h~ld in favour of the .respondent. 
In appeal to this 
!Aurt by spc:t•al i.eaYe, the appellant contend.!<! that the decree in' the 
su•t. ~avmg been. paW!d ~tftcr a period· of 5 yeah from the date of cons-
~chon, e11o;molJon from restrictions plac.t:d by s 13 will not be avaikibc 
~cahlh "':t ... only tb~ ~uit . !hould be filed but 'the decree for 
eviction 
~. ou 
e <ml:uned wtth1n the sajd pcrio<l of S )•!an. 
-
· 
' 
liELD : The tiling o! fh 
It · ·. h' 
h 
. 
· , . .1.1.. 
-only condition that is . 
c sutb Wit •n t e penod o( el(empt'ion I!;· me 
uem,tion tbe other t nec~s~ary · 
6atMy otlt- ot the requlremeiltt- cf the 
F 
~~ qf. whii;h no t i~ 6utr..!~ent lnloa. the pa~•lng of tbe decree- in ~s-
hy· 'dle ··appellant, bas;;, ~\ •· en prescnbe~. If t.he,,d\:~r!:e. •~ CO!J!ell<kd 
wes:ill>" netd to \~elf 
th~ . obtulnc~ w!thtn tb: period of S )'.!at$.": there 
bco:li!U!•: the e:~emption ~fr~! t~he ~Uit. had to be ·fifed w~thin tha(?eriod 
G 
{>{ lhc ducr.:e •n..J pot tile suit. ~9~8qflerneoh ·of s .. I 3 !$ only in respe.::t 
Tt·•~. U"<: of !he v.· . -~~· 'we 
•· . 
. 
' 
\UIIt ~Ul'YQCl\ the aho'1.:· \n" tr f: ~r. lire 
Ill l\;~P,:<:l O[ J.:tno~ U 
,i\<JI(~"IS 
Of Ue. ·t*r<bfltr, t.1 · ~-~ Hf~:t p n~b~IOO, 
~e SUU· shuu!J ba\·-' . b.;.:f\. -~ 
P•\<cd cr w~ htT(.':1flt:r t 
~ . l•kew•·~ deere~~ of elc~mcr.t 4t bj:~o 
I~ t.!~d on th·: !:J •t d~y of lh • JW\\t<l. 
ifUrt~r •. I\ . 'll~t mav 't9n:HV"'.lf>t\' 
~·
11 ~;· ~t>,urJ I•> pv,tu[ijh: ~lie; pH)~ uf lhe ~ Years t:\.:n•rtioo .. :.:-1( -~ it lJ 
·:r~ • . ,,., u th;at .... oul<l be u;~ ~ . t:O.:ree woul<i b.: gheo muu.;Jjately 
"'- ~~. 1br Mu !l'rouiJ be 
re~ult, If the cont~otiun that both· tho: 
IH:~cpld~ . l'J27 1-1·928 E) 
N•MJ within the pcrie>J (Ji ucmptior(," 1s 
· . 
I 
1 
.i 
i 
I 
FlRM AMAR NATH v. TEK CHAND (Jaganmohan Reddy,/,) W~J 
A 
A statu:e · rnust: be· JntiJ~~·ete? ~m lhe li~l)t ·:O~· i'l' ,.~.b~ct. The v~ry 
purpose of the exemption of buddmgs trom the operat1on of s, 13 was 
to give · landlords the 1 ight which as owners of buildings they had under 
the ordinary law, namely, to give them on lease at rents which they thouJ}!t 
remunerative and to evict te.nan.s during that period without any fotteQ 
impose;! by the Act. 
If na pr.ovision wus >made for exempting such de~
rees in respect of the •!xempted 
building, the exemption granted 
w1Jl 
B 
be illusory. 1.926 H-927 EJ · 
Accordingly the appeal must fail. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No. 1052 of 1971. 
Apeeal by special lea~e from the judgm~n.t and or?er dated 
May 27, 1971 of.the PunJab and Haryana Htgh Court m·Execu· 
c tion Second Appeal No. 1783 of 1970. · 
M. C. Chag'la, V. C. Mahajan, S. K. Mehta ~ 
K. L. Mehta 
and K. R. Nagaraja, for the appellant. 
M. C. Setalvad, 0. c. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder 
Narain, for the respondent. 
D 
The Judgment of 'the Court was delivered by 
P. Jagamno
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.