LexRAJINDER KUMAR BANSAL & ORS versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 225 RAJINDER KUMAR BANSAL & ORS v. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8238 of 2013) AUGUST 17, 2021 [HEMANT GUPTA AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973: s. 2(f) – Rented land – Ejectment petition – Maintainability of – Rented land let out to a club with an implied permission to construct – Construction of pavilion, which was used for the purpose of club only – Respondent No. 2-tenant created a sub-lease and transferred one portion of the property to the Municipal Committee – Ejectment petition on the ground of non-payment of rent; subletting of the premises; and that the property had been abandoned by the first respondent which had ceased to exist and the premises now being used for different purpose – Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority held that the rented land is being put to use for the purpose of business and passed eviction order against the respondents – High Court held that the club activities were not held as business within the meaning of s. 2(f) so as to apply the Act to the rented land – On appeal, held: Use of land as club for a pavilion is in interest of section of the public, thus, land let out to a club which for the purpose of construction and use of pavilion falls within the scope of s. 2(f) of the Act – High Court erred in holding that the land let out to the club used for pavilion is not for the purpose of business – Thus, eviction petition is maintainable and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The use of land as club for a pavilion is in interest of section of the public. Thus, land let out to a club which for the purpose of construction and use of pavilion falls within the scope of Section 2(f) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and thus, eviction petition is maintainable under the Act. [Para 12][234-G] [2021] 8 S.C.R. 225 225 A B C D E F G H 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R. The Model Town Welfare Council, Ludhiana v. Bhupinder Pal Singh ILR 1971 (2) Punjab & Haryana 579 – approved. 1.2 The tenant has constructed a pavilion in the year 1911 and the said pavilion was mortgaged to the District Board. The District Boards were constituted as part of local self-Government under the Punjab District Boards Act, 1883. The said Act was repealed when the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was enacted. The High Court was erroneous in holding that the land let out to the club used for pavilion is not for the purpose of business. Since the finding of fact was recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority has not been disputed, therefore, the order of the eviction was rightfully passed against the respondents. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Para 14-16][236-B- E] Narain Swadeshi Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax AIR 1955 SC 176 : [1955] 1 SCR 952; Senairam Doongarmall v. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 1961 SC 1579 : [1962] 1 SCR 257; Manipur Administration v. Nila Chandra Singh AIR 1964 SC 1533 : [1964] 5 SCR 574 – distinguished. Haji Ismail Valid Mohmad v. Sports Club in the name of Union Sports Club (1992) 1 SCC 315; Hazara Singh and Others v. Dalip Singh and Others AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 155; P.K. Kesayan Nair v C.K. Babu Naidu AIR 1954 Mad. 8929; P. Vairamani Ammal v. K.N.K. Rm. Kannappa 1970 (II) M.L.J. 689; Arjan Singh Chopra v. Sewa Sadan Social Welfare Centre, Ferozepur Cantt. I.L.R. 1967 (II) Pb. & Hr. 6459 – referred to. Case Law Reference (1992) 1 SCC 315 referred to Para 6 AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 155 referred to Para 6 ILR 1971 (2) Punjab & Haryana 579 approved Para 12 AIR 1954 Mad. 892 referred to Para 9 1970 (II) M.L.J. 689 referred to Para 9 A B C D E F G H 227 I.L.R. 1967 (II) Pb. & Hr. 645 referred to Para 9 [1955] 1 SCR 952 distinguished Para 14 [1962] 1 SCR 257 distinguished Para 14 [1964] 5 SCR 574 distinguished Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.8238 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2009 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.2531 of 1994. With Civil Appeal No.8239 of 2013 P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ekta Sikri, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ajay Pal Singh Kullar, Vikalp Mudgal, Advs. for the Appellants. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Dy. AG, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Paras Dutta, Ms. Adira A. Nair, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The landlord is in appeals aggrieved against a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.