UMED SINGH versus ARYA SAMAJ SEWA SADAN

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 04-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UMED SINGH 
v. 
ARYA SAMAJ SEWA SADAN 
JULY 4, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973: 
ss. I 3(3)(a)(i) and (ii)-Residential premises owned by Arya Sama) Sewa 
C Sadan-Eviction of tenant sought for bona fide need for running a public 
library therein-Held, a juristic person cannot have need of residence but 
may use premises for non-commercial purpose unconnected with any business 
or trade--Suit premises came under the ambit of s. l 3(3)(a)(i)-Eviction of 
tenant affirmed. 
D 
Appellant was a monthly tenant of the suit premises, which was a 
residential building. The respondent, Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan, which later 
became landlord of the building through a will, filed a suit for ejectment 
of the appellant u/s 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1973 on the grnunds of non-payment of rent and bona fide 
E requirement for starting a library therein. The Rent Controller decreed 
the suit and the appellate authority affirmed the decree. However, in the 
High Court the matter was referred to a Full Bench, which held in favour 
of the respondent and, interpreting s.13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 
observed that any activity, whether it is to be carried on in a building by 
F a juristic person or an individual but is not tainted with business or trade 
and is essentially not connec:ted with profit and loss, such activity would 
not render the usage of the building as "non-residential building". The 
revision of the tenant was dismissed. 
In the present appeals filed by the tenant it was contended that the 
G High Court failed to consider that the provisions of s.13(3)(a)(i) would have 
to be interpreted in the context of residential use and not for any other 
purposes, and in this view of the matter running a library could not be 
said to be for residential purpose and the expression "own occupation" 
could only be in relation to use and occupation for residential purpose. 
H 
196 
UMED SINGH v. ARYA SAMAJ SEWA SADAN 
197 
On the question: whether sub-clause (i) of sub-s. (3) (a) of s.13 of A 
the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, makes it 
obligatory on the part of the landlord to use the premises purely for 
residential purposes only or whether the expression "own occupation" also 
connotes use of the premises for non-commercial purposes, i.e. for 
purposes unconnected with business or trade, 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The respondent-society intends t.:i use the premises in 
question for running a public library without any profit which would bring 
B 
the same within the ambit of non-commercial use. The Full Bench of the C 
High Court was, therefore, fully justified in arriving at the conclusion that 
the suit premises would be covered by the provisions of s.13{3){a){i) of the 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The respondent 
being a society, cannot have any residential requirement in respect of a 
premises and its activities will have to determine the nature of its use of a 
premises. A juristic person cannot have need of residence but may use a 
premises for non-commercial purposes. Since the society intends to use 
the premises for itself for a non-commercial purpose, unconnected with 
any business or trade, it must come within the ambit of s.13{3)(a)(i) of 
D 
the Act and more particularly so having regard to clause {ii) which 
contemplates use of the residential premises even for purposes such as a E 
consulting room for a lawyer or other professionals. (202-A-CJ 
Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, (2001[ 5 SCC 133 and 
Attar Singh v. lnder Kumar, [1967] 2 SCR 50, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6495 of2005. F 
WITH 
Civil Appeals Nos. 6496 and 6497 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.2002 of the High Court of G 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No. 4999 of 2000. 
Raj Kumar Gupta, Sheo Kumar Gupta, Bhanu Pratap Gupta and A.N. 
Bardiyar for the Appellant. 
Gagan Gupta, Ranjay Kumar and B.K. Satija for the Respondent. 
H 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AL TAMAS KABIR, J. The appellant, Urned Singh, was inducted as 
a tenant of the suit premises by one Sewa Ram at a monthly rent of Rs. I 00/ 
- for residential purposes. One Mohan Lal was also a tenant of a portion of 
the building. The said Sewa Ram executed a Will in favour of the 

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