Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Revision No. 2462 of 1999

Judges

S.S Sudhalkar, J.

Acts

SECTION 13 EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT
Sections 24-B and 24-C of the U.P Urban Building (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act.
sub-section (8) of Section 18-A
Section 13-A of the Rent Act
Section 15(5) of the Rent Act.
Rent Act by Section 18-A(8)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judicial Summary — Revision Petition under Section 13-A, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act

Factual and Procedural Background

This revision petition was filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging an order of the Rent Controller that directed his eviction under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act ("the Rent Act"). The respondent-landlord had earlier filed a petition claiming to be a specified landlord and a co-owner (co-landlord) of the premises along with his mother and brother. The respondent was formerly in the service of the Punjab Government as Head of Department at the Medical College in Amritsar and retired on 31.10.1997. He sought possession on the ground that he wanted to shift to Sangrur to look after his aged mother and mentally retarded brother.

The disputed premises consist of two floors: the first floor (in possession of the petitioner-tenant) and the ground floor (in possession of the respondent-landlord). Sketches/maps of the ground floor were produced by both parties (Ex. P/4 by the respondent and Ex. R/1 by the petitioner); the main contest about the maps related to the user of individual rooms rather than their dimensions.

The Rent Controller allowed the landlord's petition and ordered eviction under Section 13-A. The tenant challenged that order by filing the present revision petition before the High Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the respondent-landlord can be said to "require" the premises such that possession should be granted to him under Section 13-A of the Rent Act.
Whether the accommodation in the portion in the landlord's possession (the ground floor) is sufficient for the needs of the landlord and his family.
Whether a petition under Section 13-A is maintainable when the alleged landlord is a co-owner and rent is being received by a co-owner (non-joinder of co-owners issue).
What is the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 18-A(8) of the Rent Act vis-à-vis the power under Section 15(5) — in particular, whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence and disturb findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner-Tenant's Arguments

The tenant argued that the respondent's petition was not maintainable because the respondent is a co-landlord and the tenant was paying rent to the respondent's mother, who is a co-owner; therefore the respondent lacked locus to proceed alone.
The petitioner contended that Section 13-A's summary procedure for specified landlords should not be available where the landlord is a co-owner and the rent is collected by another co-owner.
The petitioner attempted to rely on its own sketch (Ex. R/1) to demonstrate that the ground floor accommodation was sufficient or being used in a manner that made it adequate for the respondent's needs.
The petitioner cited judicial authority (Mrs. Rena Drego v. Dalchand Soni) on the meaning of "reasonable" accommodation in support of its position regarding adequacy of accommodation.

Respondent-Landlord's Arguments

The respondent asserted that he (as one of the co-owners) was a specified landlord entitled to summary relief under Section 13-A and that a petition by one co-owner is maintainable without impleading other co-owners.
He gave evidence (PW-1) describing family circumstances: an 80-year-old mother who needs constant attention and a 48-year-old brother who is mentally retarded and dumb from birth; the respondent also described his immediate family (wife, unmarried son, daughters who visit) and explained the need for three rooms (bedroom for him and wife, a room for his unmarried son, and a guest room).
Counsel for the respondent emphasised the limited scope of the High Court's revisional power under Section 18-A(8), arguing that factual findings of the Rent Controller should not be disturbed unless the order is without jurisdiction, contrary to law, or perverse.
The respondent relied on the map Ex. P/4 and argued that the nature and dimensions of rooms made it impossible for the ground floor to be used in the manner suggested by the petitioner's map Ex. R/1; therefore, the ground floor was not sufficient to meet his accommodation needs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mrs. Rena Drego v. Dalchand Soni etc., 1998 1 Judicial Reports C&R 599	Observation that the word "reasonable" cannot mean merely convenient or luxurious; it indicates what is conformable or agreeable to reason with regard to facts of particular controversy.	Cited by the petitioner's counsel; the opinion records the citation but does not expressly base its final decision on this authority.
S.P. Jain v. Krishcm Mohan, 1987 1 R.C.R 347 (Supreme Court)	Where landlord occupies ground floor and tenant occupies first floor and both portions can be used separately, the landlord may eject the tenant under the Act if otherwise entitled.	Cited by the petitioner's counsel; recorded in the opinion as a supportive authority but not explicitly treated as determinative by the court in its factual assessment.
Dr. Dina Nath v. Smt. Santokh Kaur etc., 1987-1 91 PLR 171	Explains that High Court's power under proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 18-A is not as extensive as revision under sub-section (5) of Section 15; the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence but can call the record to see whether the Rent Controller's order is according to law and can interfere where order is without jurisdiction, contrary to law, or perverse.	Relied upon by the respondent's counsel to urge restraint in disturbing factual findings of the Rent Controller; the court accepted the limited scope of revisional power as a correct statement of law.
Kashmir Singh Bhullar v. Punjab and Sind Bank, 1997-2 116 PLR 662	Illustrates appellate/revisional restraint where Rent Controller considered available accommodation and found it insufficient; the High Court was held to be in error in interfering with such a factual conclusion.	Relied upon by respondent's counsel to demonstrate that the High Court should not disturb the Rent Controller's conclusion on sufficiency of accommodation; the court treated this authority as supporting non-interference with the Rent Controller's factual findings.
Moti Lal Gaur v. Amrit Lal Chauhan, 1992-2 102 PLR 651	Held that a petition by one of co-owners/co-sharers is maintainable without impleading the other landlord as a party under Section 13-A.	Relied upon by the respondent to meet the non-joinder objection; the court applied this authority to conclude that the petition under Section 13-A was maintainable and noted that the petitioner had not pressed the non-joinder issue before the Rent Controller.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first recorded a narrowing of contentions: counsel for the respondent-landlord conceded that he would not object to the Court's considering the question of "requirement" and "sufficiency of accommodation" in this revision (because a similar issue was pending before a Division Bench in another revision). Consequently, the primary issues before the court were whether the landlord required the premises and whether the accommodation in the landlord's possession was sufficient.

On the maintainability/non-joinder point, the court examined the Rent Controller's finding on Issue No. 2 (which had decided the non-joinder objection against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner) and referred to the Moti Lal Gaur authority. The court concluded that, in view of that precedent, the petition under Section 13-A by one co-owner was maintainable—observing also that the petitioner had not pressed the non-joinder point before the Rent Controller.

Turning to factual findings on sufficiency of accommodation, the court noted that the Rent Controller had held the accommodation in the portion with the petitioner (the ground floor, as recorded in the order) to be insufficient. The court emphasized the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 18-A(8) (as explained in Dr. Dina Nath), i.e., it would not re-appreciate evidence unless the order was without jurisdiction, contrary to law, or perverse.

The court reviewed the two ground-floor maps (Ex. P/4 and Ex. R/1) and concluded that there was only a negligible structural difference between them; the main dispute concerned the stated user of rooms. It accepted the respondent's deposition (PW-1) describing his family circumstances and specific accommodation needs (need for three rooms, the presence of an elderly mother and a mentally retarded brother, the frequency of visits by daughters, et cetera).

The petitioner's attempt to demonstrate sufficiency by reference to Ex. R/1 was considered but the court found the respondent's explanation credible: given the dimensions and nature of the rooms, the respondent could not reasonably be expected to use the ground-floor rooms in the way suggested by the petitioner's map. Consequently, the court found no basis to conclude that the Rent Controller's finding as to insufficiency of the ground-floor accommodation was incorrect or based on a mistaken consideration of fact.

Applying the legal limits on revisional interference and having found the Rent Controller's factual conclusion adequately supported, the court held that interference was not warranted.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The revision petition is DISMISSED.

Implications:

The Rent Controller's order directing eviction under Section 13-A stands (subject to the limited stay ordered below).
The court continued the stay against execution of the Rent Controller's order for a period of three months from the date of the judgment to "avoid any inconvenience."
The court declined to disturb the Rent Controller's factual finding that the accommodation available to the respondent on the ground floor was insufficient for his requirements; it applied the principle that the High Court's revisional power under Section 18-A(8) is restricted and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the order is shown to be without jurisdiction, contrary to law, or perverse.
No broader precedent or novel legal rule was formulated by the court in this opinion beyond applying existing authorities; the decision's direct effect is limited to the parties (the petition is dismissed and the eviction order will be executable after the three-month stay). The opinion does not discuss any wider change in law or establish a new legal principle beyond its application of cited precedents.

Disposition: Petition dismissed. Stay on execution continues for three months.

Show full summary ...

Tarsem Singh v. Dr. Vivek Puri .

S.S Sudhalkar, J.:— This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order of the Rent Controller who ordered his eviction under Section 13(A) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Rent Act’). The respondent had filed a petition contending therein that he is specified landlord and that he is co-landlord of the premises in question alongwith his mother and brother and that he was in service of the Punjab Government and was posted as Head of Department at Medical College at Amritsar. He has further contended that he retired on 31.10.1997 after attaining the age of superannuation. He wants to shift at Sangrur to look after his aged mother and his mentally retarded brother.

2. The premises in question consists of two floors: ground and first floor. The first floor is in the possession of the petitioner-tenant and the ground floor is in the possession of the respondent-landlord. According to the respondent his mother and brother are staying on the ground floor. The parties have produced the sketches of the ground floor portion. The one produced by the respondent is marked as Ex. P/4 at Page 50 and the one produced by the petitioner is at ‘Ex. R/1. The controversy between the parties regarding the map is not much regarding the dimensions of the rooms, but is regarding the user of the rooms as mentioned in the map.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent had contended that in this revision he is not going to raise an objection that the question of requirement should not be gone into by the Court while deciding the question of granting possession to the landlord under Section 13-A of the Rent Act. This is because in another revision petition, similar issue is involved and the question is referred to a Division Bench: Thus the dispute between the parties has narrowed down and the point now remains to be considered is whether the landlord can be said to require the premises or not and whether the premises in possession of the landlord is sufficient or not. It is not disputed that the respondent retired from Amritsar and wants to settle at Sangrur.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Mrs. Rena Drego v. Dalchand Soni etc. . 1998 1 Judicial Reports C&R 599. It has been observed therein that the word ‘reasonable’ cannot mean convenient or luxurious, through it may not necessarily exclude the idea of convenience and confort. It has been further observed that it can be taken as providing an angle which is comformable or agreeable to reasons, having regard to the facts of the particular controversy. That was the judgment under the law applicable to Bombay.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the case of S.P Jain v. Krishcm Mohan . 1987 1 R.C.R 347. It is a judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Sections 24-B and 24-C of the U.P Urban Building (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. It has been held therein that where the landlord occupied ground floor of building and first floor was occupied by the tenant and both the portions of the house were capable of being used by the landlord separately and the landlord could eject the tenant under other provisions of the Act if he was otherwise entitled to.

6. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the finding of fact cannot be disturbed in a revision. He has also argued that the revision provided under the Rent Act by Section 18-A(8) does not give same powers as given by Section 15(5) of the Rent Act. He has relied on the case of Dr. Dina Nath v. Smt. Santokh Kaur etc. . 1987-1 91 PLR 171. He has relied on the following observations:—

“The power of the High Court under the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 18-A is not extensive with the power of revision under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act. The former does not confer power on the High Court to appreciate the evidence to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the order. It can call for the record of the case for the purpose of satisfying itself that the order made by the Rent Controller is according to law. In other words it can interfere with the order if it is without jurisdiction or contrary to law and express provisions of the Act as amended by the Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985 or where the order is perverse resulting in miscarriage of justice.”

7. The said judgment considered the provisions or the Rent Act as applicable to Punjab. He has also relied on the case of Kashmir Singh Bhullar v. Punjab and Sind Bank . 1997-2 116 PLR 662. He has referred to paragraph 3 of the judgment.

“We have perused the impugned judgment of the High Court regarding grant of leave to defend as well as the order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the application of the respondent. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in interfering with the order passed by the Rent Controller. There was no dispute on the facts and the only question was whether the accommodation with the appellant was sufficient for the needs of his family. The Rent Controller has taken into consideration the accommodation that was available with the respondent in the premises as well as the accommodation available in the portion of the premises in occupation of the son of the appellant and the need of the appellant and his family and has found that the accommodation in possession of the appellant was not sufficient for his use. The High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, was in error in interfering with the said view of the Rent Controller.”

8. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the mother of the respondent-landlord is a co-landlord and she is receiving rent and therefore, the rent petition filed by the respondent cannot be said to be maintainable. He has also argued that the summary procedure as provided under Section 13-A are applicable to government servants who are specified landlords. In this case, according to him, respondent-landlord cannot be said to be specified landlord because he is a co-landlord and the petitioner is paying rent to the mother of the respondent-landlord and not the respondent. He has also argued that the respondent has right to appeal and file revision thereafter. Counsel for the respondent has replied that one co-owner can filed a rent petition and has relied on the case of Moti Lal Gaur… v. Amrit Lal Chauhan…. . 1992-2 102 PLR 651. It has been held in that case that the petition by one of the Co-owners/Co-sharers is maintainable without impleading the other landlord as a party under Section 13-A of the Rent Act learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has not pressed this issue before the Rent Controller.

9. The findings on issue No. 2 by the Rent Controller are as under:—

“ISSUE NO. 2: 10. This issue was raised by the respondent that the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties but nothing was said on this issue. So, this issue is decided against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner.”

10. Even otherwise, in view of the judgment in the case of Moti Lal Gaur (supra), the petition under Section 13-A by the respondent was maintainable.

11. Regarding the question of finding of fact is concerned, the Rent Controller has held that the accommodation with the petitioner under ground floor is insufficient. It is not shown that the position regarding the sufficiency of the accommodation is wrong. If the Rent Controller had based his finding regarding sufficiency of accommodation on mistaken consideration of the fact, this court could have interfered in the revision. An attempt has been made to show from the maps on record that the accommodation available to the respondent is sufficient. There are two maps produced in this case. One is Ex. P/4 and the second is Ex. R/1. The maps are regarding the premises in possession of the respondent. So far as the structural position in both the maps in concerned, there is a negligible difference. Both the maps are of ground floor of the premises. The difference is mainly on the user of the rooms mentioned in the maps. Respondent has stated in his deposition as PW-1 that he has the mother, who is 80 years in age and requires constant attention. He has got a brother, who is 48 years of age and is mentally retarded and dumb from his birth.

12. The case of respondent is that he requires the upper storey of the house so that he could bring luggage and family consisting of his wife and unmarried son and that the ground floor construction is insufficient for accommodating the members of the family. He has also stated that he has two daughters. The elder one is in Delhi and the younger is in Amritsar and they frequently visit the respondent. Further, respondent has stated in his deposition that he requires three rooms for his occupation because one of the rooms will be user as bed room for him and his wife, second of un-married son and the 3rd room as Guest room and there is no proper guest room to accommodate his guests including relatives and friends.

13. He has stated that the rooms which are marked in the maps are used as mentioned in the maps. He has stated that there is one garage, one common room for ladies and other persons, who come to talk to his mother, there is one drawing room, one bath room for his mother and brother, there is one store and one dinning room. There is only one bath room and one latrine.

14. Counsel for the petitioner tried to show the usage as per the map, produced by it Ex. R/1. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the use of the ground floor premises cannot be made as mentioned in the map Ex. R/1. Looking to the dimensions and nature of rooms, it cannot be said that the landlord can make use of the rooms as suggested in Ex. R/1. Therefore, it can be found that the ground floor portion is not sufficient to accommodate the respondent and his family members. This being so, the judgment of the Rent Controller does not require any interference.

15. As mentioned above, learned counsel for the respondent-land-lord has consented so far as this case is concerned, that he will not take an objection for considering the question of requirement and sufficiency of the accommodation. However, even if the question of requirement and sufficiency is considered, the result in this case, cannot be otherwise. This revision petition is, therefore, without any merit and deserves dismissal.

16. As a result of this, this revision petition is dismissed. However, in order to avoid any inconvenience, it is ordered that the stay granted against the execution of the order of Rent Controller shall continue for a period of three months from today.

R.M.S

Petition dismissed.

Tarsem Singh v. Dr. Vivek Puri .

Judicial Summary — Revision Petition under Section 13-A, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner-Tenant's Arguments

Respondent-Landlord's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Tarsem Singh v. Dr. Vivek Puri .

Comments