Supreme Court Judgment on Tenancy.

K.D. Dewan v  Harbhajan S. Parihar
Appellant: K.D. Dewan
Respondent: Harbhajan S. Parihar
Date: 16/10/2001
Bench: Mr.S.S.M. Quadri & Mr. S.N. Phukan
 
Facts: The appellant is the tenant of Suit Premises No.2235, 1st Floor, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Premises’) of which one Bhakhtawar Singh was said to be the owner. The father of the respondent, Bagicha Singh, inducted the appellant into possession of the premises in 1965. The respondent was paying rent to him till his death in 1976. Thereafter, the appellant has been paying the rent to the respondent. On the ground that he required the premises for his own occupation the respondent filed Rent Application No.231/1996 under Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, ‘the Act’). The appellant denied that the relationship between him and the respondent was that of the tenant and the landlord and further denied that the respondent required the premises for his personal occupation. On considering the evidence produced by both the sides, the learned Rent Controller found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the respondent and the appellant; it was also fond that the respondent satisfied the requirement of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the appellant on September 25, 1997. He unsuccessfully challenged that order before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, who dismissed the appeal on July 27, 1998. The appellant then carried the matter before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing Civil Revision No.3791 of 1998 which was dismissed on April 6, 1999. It is the validity of that order that is challenged in this appeal.
Contentions: Mr. O.P. Sharma the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has vehemently contended that having regard to the definition of the term ‘landlord’ in clause (c) section 2 of the Act, the respondent cannot be treated as landlord: be laid emphasis on the words “every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord” and argued that no document has been filed and no material was placed before the Court to show that the respondent derived his title from the heir of the owner of the premises after his death. Therefore, he could not be treated as a landlord for purposes of section 13(3)(a) of the Act. Mr.A.Mariarputham, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Act maintained distinction between an owner of a premises and a landlord of the premises: for purposes of section 13(3)(a), what is required to be seen is whether the person seeking eviction satisfies the requirement of the definition of ‘landlord’ and therefore, all the courts rightly held that the respondent was the landlord and ordered eviction of the appellant.
Conclusion: From the above discussion it follows that such a truncated meaning of the term ‘landlord’ cannot be imported in clause (c) of section 2 of the Act having regard to the width of the language employed therein and there is no other provision in the Act to restrict its meaning for purposes of section 13(3)(a) thereof to an owner of the premises alone. The appellant has been paying monthly rent of the premises to the respondent from 1976. The respondent is thus the landlord of the premises under the Act and is entitled to seek relief under section 13(3)(a) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we find no illegality in the order of his High Court under challenge. The appeal is without merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
SUBMITTED BY:- SHUBHANGI GUPTA.