G1JLRAJ SINGH GREWAL versus DR. HARBANS SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 149 · Decided: 12-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-!' 
G1JLRAJ SINGH GREWAL 
A 
v. 
DR. HARBANS SINGH AND ANR. 
JANUARY 12, 1993. 
[J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND 
B 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
East Punjab UrlJan Rent Restriction Ac4 1948-&clion 13(3)(a)(i)(a) 
read with Section 2 (a), ( d), (g) and (h }-Eviction of ·~cheduled building" for 
personal need-Held, all buildings fall into two categories, non-residential and c 
residentiaf--'Scheduled building' in Section 2(h) is a kind of 'residential 
building' and ground of eviction for personal need available-Amendment 
Acts of 1956, 1957, 1966 and 1985-Section 13A. 
~ 
East Punjab UrlJan Rent Restriction Ac4 1948-Sections 13, 13A and 
2(a), (d), (g) and {h}-lnterpretation of statutes-Principle of hmmonious D 
construction-Omission of "scheduled building"by amendment in 1956, and 
its inclusion in provisions inserted by the 1985 amendment-Held, retention 
of 'scheduled' in the provision when 'residential building" includes scheduled 
building considered supeifluouHnserted in 1985 Amendment to avoid con-
troversies. 
E 
The appellant took the suit premises situate in Ludhiana on a 
monthly rent or Rs. 800 from respondent 1. Both the respondents are 
medical practitioners. The respondent tiled a petition for eviction or the 
appellant tenant on three grounds: their personal need under Section 
13(3)(a)(i)(a); change of user under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) and impairment F 
-
~ 
of the value and utility of the rented building under Section 13(2) (iii) of 
the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1948. 
The Rent Controller dismissed the petition. The appellate authority 
held that the personal need of the respondents and the ground or change G 
or user was proved. Since the building though let out to the tenant for a 
/l 
residential purpose was used partly for his proression and bad become a 
'scheduled building' under Section 2(b), he could not be evicted on the 
ground of personal need. The order of eviction was, however, made on the 
ground or change or user of the building. The High Court on revision 
affirmed the finding and order or eviction made by the appellate authority. H 
149 
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
In the Supreme Court, it was argued for the appellant that there was 
no change of user to justify the order of eviction on that ground and that 
the finding on the question of personal need was erroneous. Relying on 
legislative intent evideneed in amendments to the Act, It was further 
contended that no order of eviction can be made on the ground of personal 
B need contained in, Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) in respect of a 'scheduled 
building' since that ground is available for eviction only from a residential 
building. The omission of the words "or a schP.duled" after the word 
"residential" in Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) in 1956 and their addition in Section 
• 13A in 1985 were referred to advance the argument. 
C 
The respondents submitted that there was no ground to interfere 
with the order of eviction; that 'scheduled building' in section Z(h) con-
tinues to be a 'residential building' in section 2(g) and that personal need 
in section 13(3) (a) (i) (a) is available as a grolll!d for eviction; and that 
the finding of fact relating to personal need of the landlord in not open to 
D challenge. Io the alternative, if a "scheduled building" is not a "residential 
building" then the ground of change of user, unilaterally was available. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The finding of fact of personal need is unassailable. 
That respondent 2 is carrying on his profession at some distance 
from Ludhiana is not sufficient to negative the landlords' n<-ed. [1SSBJ 
Non-examination of respondent 2 is immaterial when respondent 1 
has examined himself and proved the need of the landlord; it is at best a 
F 
matter relating to appreciation of evidence, on which ground this finding 
of fact cannot be assailed particularly when it was not seri11usly challenged 
in the High Court. (pp.6/7) [155C) 
2. All buildings are divided into two categories: "non- residential" 
G and "residential". Buildings used for the purpose of business or trade are 
"non-residential" and the remaining buildings are all "residential". This is 
clear from the definitions in section 2(a), (d) and (g). (pp.23/24) [l67D] 
3. 'Scheduled building' as defined in section Z(h) is merely a kind of 
'residential building' as defined in section Z(g), its characteristic being its 
H part user for a scheduled purpose. (p.24) [167EI 
J

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