LexSWAMI NATH versus NIRMAL SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E [2010] 10 S.C.R. 1002 SWAMI NATH v. NIRMAL SINGH (SLP (Civil) No. 8317 of 2006) SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR, A.K. PATNAIK AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: s.13-8 rlw. s.18-A - Eviction Petition - By non-resident Indian - Allowed by courts below - On appeal, held: Landlord entitled to eviction. s. 13-8 (As amended in the year 2001) - Interpretation of - Held: Interpretation of the provision that right of immediate possession can be exercised only once, would frustrate the object of the amendment to the provision. The respondent-landlords who were non-resident Indians, filed petitions u/s. 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. They sought eviction of tenants from their respective tenanted premises. The F Rent Controller allowed all the three eviction petitions. The petitioners-tenants moved the High Court in revision petition. In all the revision petitions, the common plea was that the landlords already being in possession of one shop, had no bona fide need for the suit premises. In one of the revision petitions the additional plea was that G under the provisions of Section 13-B, the landlord was entitled to exercise his right of option for immediate possession only once; and that having obtained vacant possession of a shop room in the building in question, H 1002 SWAMI NATH v. NIRMAL SINGH 1003 such right was exhausted and, therefore, the landlord A was no longer entitled further for relief u/s. 13-B. The High Court dismissed the revision petitions. Therefore, the instant Special Leave Petitions were filed by the tenants. Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court B HELD: The interpretation sought to be given by the petitioners to the proviso to Section 13-8(1) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 that under the provisions of Section 13-B, the landlord was entitled to exercise his right of option for immediate possession only C once, would lead to an absurd situation which was not contemplated by the legislature while introducing the provisions of Section 13-B by way of amendment in 2001. The very object of the amendment would be frustrated if the narrow and constricted meaning being canvassed on D behalf of the petitioners is to be accepted. [Para 13) [1008- C-D] Ba/dev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini JT 2005 (12) SC 442 - relied on. E Case Law Reference: JT 2005 (12) SC 442 Relied on. Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Civil) No. 8317 of 2006. F From the Judgment & Order dated 28.02.2006 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 1146 of 2006. WITH SLP (C) Nos. 11719 & 11720 of 2006. G Neeraj Jain, Sanjay Singh, Sushat Kumar, Umang Shankar, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Kavita Wadia, Rajat Sharma, H 1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A A.P. Mohanty, Dr. Kailash Chand, R.V. Naik, S.K. Tandon, Raghavendra Naik, R.K. Gupta, Vinod K. Aggarwal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006 was taken up for hearing along with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.11719 of 2006 and 11720 of 2006 as the issues involved in all the three matters were the same. All the three matters relate to interpretation of the provisions of C Section 13-B read with Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as "the 1949 Act". 2. The common case in all these three Special Leave 0 Petitions is that the Respondents as Non-Resident Indians filed petitions before the concerned Rent Controller under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act for eviction of the Petitioners from their respective tenanted premises and that all the three petitions were allowed and eviction ()f the Petitioners was ordered. In E Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006, the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, Phagwara, moved the High Court in Civil Revision No.1146 of 2006. 3. In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11719 of 2006, the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by F the Rent Controller, Phillaur, moved the High Court in Civil Revision No.5979 of 2004 against the said order of the Rent Controller. Similarly, the Petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11720 of 2006 moved the High Court in Civil Revision
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.