Dev Brat Sharma v. Dr Jagjit Mehta .

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal, filed by a specified landlord under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, challenges a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Rent Controller had initially ordered eviction on the landlord’s application under Section 13-A. The High Court set aside that eviction order and dismissed the Section 13-A application. The landlord then approached the Supreme Court by special leave.

The premises are part of a residential house on Ladowali Road, Jalandhar City. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of personal use and occupation, asserting that following his retirement from government service he intended to practice as an advocate in Jalandhar and to establish his chambers in the disputed premises.

On November 28, 1988, while granting special leave, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be placed before a three-judge bench. In view of submissions made earlier, the Court asked the Rent Controller to report—after hearing the parties—whether any sanctioned scheme operative within Jalandhar City existed that would make applicable the ratio of several decisions previously rendered with reference to Chandigarh. The Rent Controller reported that no such sanctioned scheme exists in Jalandhar.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the tenant’s use of a portion of a residential house as a clinic constituted an impermissible change of user, particularly when the tenancy was created for establishing the clinic.
2. Whether the jurisprudence developed in decisions concerning Chandigarh could apply to Jalandhar, contingent upon the existence of a sanctioned scheme in Jalandhar City.
3. Whether, on the record before the Court, the landlord was entitled to eviction under Section 13-A for his stated requirement to establish advocate’s chambers after retirement.
4. Whether it was appropriate, in an appeal by special leave, for the Court to entertain reliance on oral evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The house is residential in nature and its user could not be changed; therefore, the tenant could not have set up a clinic in any part of the house.
• The appellant sought to rely on oral evidence in support of his position.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court first addressed the potential applicability of decisions concerning Chandigarh. It had earlier directed the Rent Controller to ascertain whether a sanctioned scheme existed in Jalandhar City that would attract those decisions. The Rent Controller’s report confirmed that no such scheme exists. Consequently, the Court treated the Chandigarh-based ratio as inapplicable to the present case.

Turning to the principal contention on change of user, the Court found that there had been no change of user because the tenancy itself was created for the purpose of locating the tenant’s clinic in the premises. This factual feature distinguished the case from certain prior decisions on which the appellant sought to rely, and took the matter outside the ratio of those precedents as referenced in argument.

On the appellant’s attempt to rely on oral evidence, the Court declined to consider it, stating that it was not appropriate in an appeal by special leave to allow such evidence to be read. The Court instead assessed the matter based on the broad features available on the record.

Applying these considerations, the Court agreed with the High Court’s conclusion that the landlord was not entitled to evict the tenant. It characterized the High Court’s conclusion as unassailable on the record presented.

Holding and Implications

Appeal dismissed; there was no order as to costs.

Implications: The High Court’s decision setting aside the Rent Controller’s eviction order and dismissing the landlord’s application under Section 13-A stands affirmed. The immediate effect is that the tenant remains in possession, and the landlord’s claim for eviction on the stated ground fails. The opinion indicates the decision rests on the specific facts, particularly the original purpose of the tenancy, and does not set out any new general rule or precedent.