PADAM NABH & SONS versus YASH PAL

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 17-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
543
   [2021] 12 S.C.R. 543
543
PADAM NABH & SONS
v.
YASH PAL
(Civil Appeal No.5976 of 2014)
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – s.13-B –
Summary jurisdiction – Non-Resident Indian (NRI) who purchased
a building to which the Act applies, subsequent to the induction of
tenant is entitled to invoke summary jurisdiction under s.13-B – If a
NRI becomes the owner of the building to which the Act applies and
the tenancy of a person in occupation is attorned in his favour, the
premises would become a premises let out by him, as otherwise the
jural relationship of landlord and tenant will not come into existence
– Once a NRI acquires a premises which is in the occupation of a
tenant inducted by his predecessor in title, he becomes the owner –
The moment the tenancy is attorned in his favour, then the jural
relationship of tenant landlord is created and the premises become
one let out by him – It is perhaps with a view to highlight this aspect
that the legislature has carefully used the expression “owner” in
s.13-B, even while using the expression “landlord” in other places
– Rent Control and Eviction.
Rent control legislations: Purpose of enactment – Discussed.
Rent Control and Eviction: While the owner of a premises
may also be the landlord of the premises, a landlord, within the
meaning of the expression under the Rent Control legislations, need
not necessarily be the owner of the said premises.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The shortage of housing and the exploitation of
tenants by landlords in the urban areas, in the aftermath of the
world wars, led to the enactment of rent control legislations in
the country. The problems created by the post war conditions
differed from State to State and hence, the solution sought to be
offered in the form of legislation also differed from State to State.
As a matter of fact the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
1949 is an offshoot of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,
1941 and the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, both of
which are pre-independent and pre-partition legislation. On the
contrary, the Delhi Act of 1958 is an offshoot of the Delhi and
Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The areas to which these acts
applied had their own peculiar geographical features and socio-
economic conditions. This is why the language employed in these
rent control legislations differ, though they may have a common
template. [Para 10][554-C-E]
2. Coming to the distinguishing features between the Delhi
Act and the East Punjab Act, it may be seen immediately that the
Delhi Act covers four categories of persons, namely,(i) a landlord
in occupation of a residential premises allotted to him by the
Central Government or any local authority and who is required
to vacate such residential accommodation; (ii) a landlord, released
or retired from armed forces or a dependent of a member of any
armed forces who had been killed in action, including a member
of the armed forces who is due to retire within one year; (iii) a
landlord who is a retired employee of the Central Government
or of the Delhi Administration; and (iv) a widow. But under the
Punjab Act, the right to seek immediate possession is conferred
in favour of only two categories of persons, namely, (i) a specified
landlord, meaning thereby a person 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 a connection
with the affairs of the union or of a State; and (ii) an owner who is
a non resident Indian and who returns to India. [Para 11]
[554-F-H; 555-A]
3. While Section 13-A of the East Punjab Act was inserted
by amending Act 2 of 1985, Section 13-B was inserted by Punjab
Act 9 of 2001. Delhi Act does not contain any special provision
for the benefit of NRI landlords. It is common knowledge that
the major chunk of the NRI diaspora is from three states, namely,
Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. Therefore, the legislature
thought fit to exempt buildings owned by NRIs from the rigors of
the Rent Restriction Act. Hence, the normal rule of interpretation
of a legislation for the welfare of the tenants, will give way while
interpreting the provisions as applicable to the exempted
categories. [Para 12][555-B-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
545
4. While carving out an exception in favour of four categories
of p

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