JOGINDER PAL versus NAVAL KISHORE BEHAL

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 1078 · Decided: 10-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JOGINDER PAL 
v. 
NA VAL KISHORE BEHAL 
MAY 10, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949: Section ! 3(3)(a)(ii)-Ground of 
c eviction-Bonafide requirement of landlord on the ground of "own use"-
Interpretation of-Held, Courts have to adopt a reasonable and balanced 
approach based on the assumption that legislatures intended equal treatment 
to be meted out to both the parties, viz. Landlord and tenants-It must be 
assigned a wider, liberal and practical, meaning and includes the requirement 
D of the member of the family/person to whom the landlord is dependent or who 
is dependent on landlord. 
Statutory Interpretation: 
When an expression not defined by the Legislature, Courts could give 
E 
colour and content to the expression based on the subject of legislation and 
the context in which a word or expression is employed. 
Landlord-Respondent filed an· eviction petition under Section 
13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act on the ground of 
bonafide requirement for the office of his son, who was a Chartered 
F 
Accountant residing with him. Tenant-Appellant was in occupation of 
the suit premises for non-residential purpose. Rent Controller dismissed 
the petition. Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the landlord. 
Aggrieved, tenant preferred a revision petition which was rejected by the 
High· Court. Hence this appeal. 
G 
The Court issued notice limited to the question whether the 
requirement of the landlord'.s son would fall within the phrase 'his own 
use' under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. 
It was contended for the appellant that the language of the provision 
is plain and simple and not doubtful, and so the expression "his own use" 
H 
1078 
I 
~ 
.... 
~· 
.,... 
~ 
JC 
~ 
..... 
r-
"' 
..... 
I ,., 
JOG IN DER PAL v. NAVAL KISHDRE BEHAL 
1079 
should be interpreted literally according to the settled principles of A 
interpretation. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Legislature is fair both to the tenants and the landlords. 
Courts have to adopt a reasonable and balanced approach while B 
interpreting Rent Control Legislations starting with an assun1ption that 
an equal treatment has been meted out to both the s~ctions of the Society. 
In spite of the overall balance tilting in favour of the tenants, while 
interpreting such of the provisions to take care of the· interest of landlord, 
Court should not hesitate in leaning in favour of the landlords. Such 
provisions arc en grafted in rent control legislations to take care of thos
1e 
situations where the landlord too is weak, feeble and feel humble. 
11085-G, H; 1086-A, B\ 
c 
Prabhakaran Nair and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 1198714 
SCC 238; Malpe Vishwanath Acaharya and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra D 
and Anr., 1199812 SCC 1; Arjun Khiamal Makhijani v . .lamnadas C Tu/iani 
and Ors., 119891 4 SCC 612; Mst. Bega Begum and Ors .. v. Abdul Ahad 
Khan (dead) by lrs. and Ors., 119791 1 SCC 273 and Shiv Sarup Gupta v. 
Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 119991 6 SCC 222, relied on. 
2.1. The judicial opinion leans entirely in favour of assigning the E 
expression 'his own' requirement of the landlord a liberal, wide and 
useful-even an extended-meaning as that would advance the purpose of 
enacting the provision, discarding a narrow interpretation. The expression 
"for his own use" as occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act cannot 
be narrowly construed. The expression must be assigned a wider, liberal 
and practical meaning. The requirement is not only the requirement of F 
the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself require 
the accommodation and to fulfil the requirement he must himself 
physically occupy the premises but also the requirement of a member of 
the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is 
dependent on the landlord, could be considered to be the requirement of G 
the landlord for his own use. 11092-A, B, Cl 
2.2. In several decisions the pari materia provisions were interpreted 
so as to include the requirement of the wife, husband, sister,' children 
including son, daughter, a widowed daughter and her son, nephew, 
coparceners, members of. family and dependents and kith and kin, the H 
1080 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A requirement of landlord as "his" or "his own" requirement and user. 
Keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent 
in a p

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