LexRAKESH VIJ versus RAMINDER PAL SINGH SETHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAKESHVIJ A v. RAMINDER PAL SINGH SETHI SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] B Rent Control and Eviction: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: Section 13-Eviction Petition-Bona tide requirement-Non-residential building-Jn Union Territory Chandigarh-Landlord was co-owner of premises described as Shop-cum-Flat-Landlord filed an eviction petition under S. 13 of 1949 Act on the ground that the landlord ivanted to set up c a bigger dental clinic with modern gadgets for which space currently in his o.:cupation was wholly inadequate-The 1949 Act was amended by the 1956 D Amendment Act as a result of which the landlord could only seek eviction of a tenant from a residential or a scheduled building, but was completely deprived of his right to seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building-The 1949 Act was extended to Union Territory Chandigarh by the 197 4 Extension Act-, Thereafter, the 1982 Amendment Act declared the suit E premises i.e. the Shop-cum-Flat a non-residential building-Subsequently, the Supreme Court struck down the 1956 Amendment Act in Harbilas' case- The eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Control/er-High Court dismissed the revision-Correctness of-Held: The provisions of the entire 1949 Act have been extended and made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh-Therefore, it is open to a landlord to seek eviction of a F tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of his own use-East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956-East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974-East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Chandigarh Amendment) Act, 1982. The respondent was a Dental Surgeon and was the co-owner along with G his wife of a premises described as Shop-cum-Flat located at the Union Territory Chandigarh in which the appellant was a tenant. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the ground that the respondent wanted to set up a 777 H 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A bigger dental clinic with modern gadgets for which the space required was wholly inadequate in the rented premises currently in his occupation. The 1949 Act was amended by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956 as a result of which the landlord could only seek eviction of a tenant from a residential ot a scheduled building or rented land, but was completely deprived of his right to seek eviction of a tenant from a B non-residential building even if he required it for his own use. The 1949 Act was extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974. By the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Chandigarh Amendment) Act, 1982 the premises in dispute became a non-residential building. The Amendment Act, 1956 was C struck down by this Court in Harbi/as' case. D The eviction 'petition was allowed by the Rent Controller and the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. Hence the appeal. The following question arose before the Court:- Whether a landlord in the Union Territory of Chandigarh can seek eviction ofa tenant on the ground of his own use both from residential and also non-residential building under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949? E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HEW: I. Section 3 of the EastPunjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 makes the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, subject to the modification specified in the Schedule, applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh with effect from 4.1I.I972. It is not a case F where any specific Section or provision of the 1949 Act may have been made applicable, but the provisions of the entire 1949 Act have been extended and made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It is in fact a case of extension of an Act to a territory to which it was previously not applicable. G [796-G-H; 797-A] 2. On the date when the eviction petition was filed or at any stage subsequent thereto including the date when the matter was heard and is being decided by this Court, it is not possible to read the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in a manner in which it was amended by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956 but has to be read as it H origin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.