K.D. DEWAN versus HARBHAJAN S. PARIHAR

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 16-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

f . 
( 
K.D. DEWAN 
A 
v. 
HARBHAJAN S. PARIHAR 
OCTOBER 16, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Rent and Eviction : 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 :. 
Ss. 2(c) and 13(3)(a)-Landlord seeking eviction of tenant from residen-
C 
tial building on ground of personal occupatiori-"Landlord"·-Meaning of-
Held, to be a landlord within the meaning of s.2(c) a person need not neces-
sarily be the owner-For purposes of the Act Iegisldture has made a distinction 
between an owner of a premises and a landlord-The Act deals with the rights 
and obligations of a landlord only as defined therein-Ownership of pref!1ises 
D 
is iinmaterial for purposes of the Act-To claim relief u/s. 13(3)(a) a person. 
must be a landlord within the meaning of the terms in s.2(c)-His being owner 
of premises is neither a pre-requisite nor a relevant fac~or-F ather of respond-
ent having inducted appellant into possession and appellant paying rent ini-. 
tially to father of resp~ndent and on his death to respondent, as such responde_~t 
is landlord of the premises and entitled to seek relief under s. 13( 3 )( a)-Rent 
Controller ordered ev,iction holding that ~here. existed relationship of landlord 
and tenant between the parties and landlord satisfied requirement of s.13( 3 )( q)-
Appellante authority dismissed the appeal-;--No illegality found in the orde.r of 
High Court dismissing. revision of tenant. 
' 
M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma & Others, AIR (1981) SC 1113, 
distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 4834 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.99 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.R. No. 3791 of 1998. 
O.P. Sharma, K.R. Gupta, R.C. Gubrelle and Abhishek Atrey for the 
appellant. 
241 
E 
F 
G 
H 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
A. Mariarputham, Maninder Singh, Aruna Mathur, Ms. Pratibha M. 
B 
Singl;:t and Ms. Kavita Wadia for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and order of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.R. No. 3791 of 1998 dated April 6, 1999. 
The appellant is the tenant of Suit Premises No. 2235. 1st Floor, Sector 
21-C, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Premises') of which one Bhakhtawar Singh 
was said to be the owner. The father of the respondent, Bagi cha Singh, inducted 
C 
the appellant into possession of the premises in 1965. The respondent was 
payrng rent to him till his death in 1976. Thereafter, the appellant has been 
paying the rent to the respondent. On the ground that he required the premises 
for his own occupation the respondent filed Rent Application No. 231/1996 
under Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 
D 
(for short, 'the Act'). The appellant denied that the relationship between him 
and the respondent was ·that of the tenant and the landlord and further denied 
that the respondent required the premises for his personal occupation. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
On considering the evidence produced by both the sides, the learned 
Rent Controller found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed 
between the respondent and the appellant; it was also found that the respondent 
satisfied the requirement of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the 
Act. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the appellant 
on September 25, 1997. He unsuccessfully challenged that order before the 
Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, who dismissed the appeal on July 27, 1998. 
The appellant then carried the matter before th~ High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana by filing Civil Revision No. 3791 of 1998 which was dismissed on 
April 6, 1999. It is the validity of that order that is challenged ir1 this appeal. 
Mr. O.P. Sharma the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, 
has vehemently contended that having regard to the definition of the term 
'landlord' in clause ( c) of Section 2 of the Act, the respondent cannot be treated 
as landlord; he laid emphasis on the words "every person from time to time 
deriving title under a landlord" and agrued that no document has been filed and 
no material was placed before the Court to show that the respondent derived 
his title from the heir of the owner of the preinises after his death. Therefore, 
) 
f 
\ 
I 
K.D. DEWAN v. HARBHAJAN S. PARIHAR 
243 
he could not be treated as a landlord for purposes of Section 13(3)(a) of the · A 
Act. 
Mr. A. Mariarp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.