# Municipal Commitiee, Abohar v. Dau/at Ram, I.L.R

- **Citation:** [1967] 2 S.C.R. 50
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-07-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2009 of 1966
- **Bench:** K. ?\. Wanchoo, G. K. MnrER, C.A. VAIDIAl.INGAM
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/municipal-commitiee-abohar-v-dau-at-ram-i-l-r-4001
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

B
Easr P1111jab Urban Resrrictio11 Acr (Ill of 1949)--S. 13(3)(a)(ii)-
scope of-Wherh.er ejectment order can be obtained by land/ora for any
purpose "far his 01vr1 use''--Or 011/y for purposes of business or trade.
The appellant was the tenant of certain land which was "rented land"
wilhin the meaning of s. 2(f) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act Ill of 19~9, and which was taken by him for the purpose of a fu~·
C
wood stall.
The respondent filed an applicatio.1 for the ejectment of the
appellant from the hnd mainly on the ground that he needed the land
himself to erect a residential house and claimed that be was entitled te
an order of ejectment under s. !3(3)(a) (ii)
of the
Act. The Rent
Controller dismissed the application on the view tnat the landlord could
only obtain an order under s. l1(3)(a)(ii) to have the land vacated if he
needed it for a business purpose.
However,
the
Appellate
authodty
allowed the appeal holding that it was open to the landlord to get
a
D
tenant ejected whatever may be the purpose for which he required
the
)and for his O\VD use.
The decision was upheld in revision by the High
Coun.
Oo appeal to this Court,
HELD : As the respondent landlord roquired the land not for busine'5
or trade principally but only for constructing a house for himself, he wa.•
E
not entitled to eject the appellant under s. 13(3)(a)(ii). (55 DJ
Although sub-sclause (a) of s.13(3)(a)(ii) which provides for
the
landlord to be put in posse~•ion of the land if he requires it "for his own
use" is not qualified, the fact that sub-els. (b)
and (c) require that the
landlord should not be in possession of any rented land for his O\\n business and should not have ~iven up possession of any other rented land,
i.e., land which he was pnncipally using for business, shows that he can
F
only take advantage of sub-cl. (a) if he is able to show that he requires
the rented land for business. Otherwise the restrictions contained in subcl, (b) and sub-cl. (c) would become meaninglesq,
Reading sub-els. (a)
(b) and (c) together tliere can be no doubt tbat sub-cl. (a) is restricted
to land required for bu•ine~' or trade. [54 G-55 G]
Municipal Commitiee, Abohar v. Dau/at Ram, I.L.R.
[1959] Punjab
1131; overruled.
Crv11. APPELLATE JL>1us1>1n10~ : Civil Appeal No. 2009 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
July 15, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision 1077 of
1966.
Gopal Singh, for the appellant.
S. L. Chhiher and M. L. Chhiher, for the respondent.
G
H
.A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ATTAR SINGH v. INDER KUMAR (Wanchoo, /.)
51

## Text

A'ITAR SINGH
A
l'.
INDER Kt;MAR
Norember 4, 1966
[K. ?\. WANCHOO, G. K. MnrER AND C.A. VAIDIAl.INGAM, J.J.]
B
Easr P1111jab Urban Resrrictio11 Acr (Ill of 1949)--S. 13(3)(a)(ii)-
scope of-Wherh.er ejectment order can be obtained by land/ora for any
purpose "far his 01vr1 use''--Or 011/y for purposes of business or trade.
The appellant was the tenant of certain land which was "rented land"
wilhin the meaning of s. 2(f) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act Ill of 19~9, and which was taken by him for the purpose of a fu~·
C
wood stall.
The respondent filed an applicatio.1 for the ejectment of the
appellant from the hnd mainly on the ground that he needed the land
himself to erect a residential house and claimed that be was entitled te
an order of ejectment under s. !3(3)(a) (ii)
of the
Act. The Rent
Controller dismissed the application on the view tnat the landlord could
only obtain an order under s. l1(3)(a)(ii) to have the land vacated if he
needed it for a business purpose.
However,
the
Appellate
authodty
allowed the appeal holding that it was open to the landlord to get
a
D
tenant ejected whatever may be the purpose for which he required
the
)and for his O\VD use.
The decision was upheld in revision by the High
Coun.
Oo appeal to this Court,
HELD : As the respondent landlord roquired the land not for busine'5
or trade principally but only for constructing a house for himself, he wa.•
E
not entitled to eject the appellant under s. 13(3)(a)(ii). (55 DJ
Although sub-sclause (a) of s.13(3)(a)(ii) which provides for
the
landlord to be put in posse~•ion of the land if he requires it "for his own
use" is not qualified, the fact that sub-els. (b)
and (c) require that the
landlord should not be in possession of any rented land for his O\\n business and should not have ~iven up possession of any other rented land,
i.e., land which he was pnncipally using for business, shows that he can
F
only take advantage of sub-cl. (a) if he is able to show that he requires
the rented land for business. Otherwise the restrictions contained in subcl, (b) and sub-cl. (c) would become meaninglesq,
Reading sub-els. (a)
(b) and (c) together tliere can be no doubt tbat sub-cl. (a) is restricted
to land required for bu•ine~' or trade. [54 G-55 G]
Municipal Commitiee, Abohar v. Dau/at Ram, I.L.R.
[1959] Punjab
1131; overruled.
Crv11. APPELLATE JL>1us1>1n10~ : Civil Appeal No. 2009 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
July 15, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision 1077 of
1966.
Gopal Singh, for the appellant.
S. L. Chhiher and M. L. Chhiher, for the respondent.
G
H
.A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ATTAR SINGH v. INDER KUMAR (Wanchoo, /.)
51
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Wancboo, J. The main question raised in this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court is the interpretation ofs. 13 (3) (a) (ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, No. III of 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Brief
facts necessary for determination of this question are these. The
appellant was the tenant of certain lane! at Lahori Gate, Patiala.
It is not in dispute that the land in question is "rented land" within
the meaning of s. 2 (f) of the Act inasmuch as the land was taken by
the appellant for the purpose of a firewo0d stall. The original
owner of the land became an evacuee, and eventually the respondent purchased the land from the Managing Officer and a sale
certificate was issued in his favour on May 31, 1963. The appellant
thus became the respondent's tenant. Thereafte1 the respondent
filed an application for the ejectment of the appellant on a number
of grounds. One of the grounds in support of the claim for ejectment was that the respondent needed the land for erection of a
residential house.
It is this ground with which we are mainly concerned in the present appeal. The case of the appellant on the
other hand was that even if the respondent required the land for
construction of a residential house he could not be given an order of
ejectment under s. 13 (3) (a) (ii).
That is how the interpretation of
this provision mainly arises in the present appeal.
The Rent Controller held that it was clear that the respondent
did not need the land for running any business and only needed it
for constructing a residential house for himself. He took the view
that rented land could only be got vacated under s. 13 (3) (a) (ii) if
the landlord needed it for a business purpose. On the other points
raised in the case the Rent Controller found against the respondent.
Therefore he dismissed the application.
The respondent then went in appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal. It was of the
view that it was open to the landlord to get a tenant ejected from
rented land under s. 13 (3) (a) ii) whatever may be the purpose
for which the landlord required the land for his own use. The
Appellate Authority followed the decision of the Punjab High Court
in Mu11icipa/ Committee, Abohar v. Daulat Ram.(') The other
points raised in the appeal were also decided in favour of the landlord and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and directed
the tenant to put the landlord in possession.
The appellant then went in revision to the High Court which
upheld the view taken by the Appellate Authority and dismissed the
revision. Thereupon the appellant obtained special leave, and that
is how the matter has come up before us.
(I) I.LR. [1959] Punjab 1131.
52
SUPltl!MI! COURT ltl!POltTS
[1967) 2 S.C.R·
The Act was passed in 1949, and the purpose of the legislation
was to restrict the increase of rent of certain premises situate within
the limits of urban areas and eviction of tenants. The Act thus is
a piece of ameliorative legislation in the interests of tenants of
premises in urban areas, so that they may be protected against large
increase in rents and from harassment by eviction consequent on
the increase of population and the division of the Punjab in 1947
and large movement of population in consequence thereof.
The
Act deals with buildings-residential and non-residenlial ·-and also
with rented land.
In the present appeal we are concerned with
rented land, which is defined in s. 2(f) as meaning any land let
separately for the purpose of being used principally fur business
or trade. Thus rented land is a piece of land on which lhcr.e is no
building-rcsidenlial or non-residential,
but which has been let
for business or trade, as in this case, for keeping a firewood stall.
Sections 4 to IO deal with fair rent and other ancillary matters.
Section 13 provides for protection to tenants from eviclion.
Subsection (I) thereof, inter alia, lays down that a tenant in possession
of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom except in
accordance with the provisions of that section.
Sub-section (2)
then provide grounds on which a landlNd may get :.1 1enant evicted
and applies both to buildings and rented land.
We arc not concerned in the present appeal with this sub-section. Sub-section (3)
provides for special cases of eviction and the relevant provisic>ll with
which we are concerned reads thus :-
"(3) (a) A landlord may apply to the Controller
for an .order directing the tenant to put the landlord in
posscsswn ....
(ii) in the case of rented land, if-
( a) he requires it for his own use;
(b) he is not occupying in the urban area concerned
for the purpose of his business any other such
rented land, and
(c) he has not vacated such rented land without
sufficient cause after the commencement of this
Act, in the urban area concerned."
The contention of the respondent-landlord which has found
favour with the High Court is that this provision applies in the case
of rented land if the landlord requires that rented land for his
own 11se, and it is urged that as the expression "for his own use" is
unqualified, the landlord can ask for eviction if he requires the rented ]and for his own use, whatever may be th~ use to which he may
put the rented land after eviction. This view was taken by the High
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
JI
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ATTAR SINGH v. INDER KUMAR (Wanchoo, J.)
53
Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Abohar(') and has been
followed in the present case. On the other hand, the contention
on behalf of the appellant-tenant is that though the words "for his
own use" in this provision are not in terms qualified, they must be
read as qualified, on a combined reading of sub-clauses (b) and (c)
along with sub-cl. (a); and if that is done, the provision really means
that a landlord can ask for eviction of rented land only in those cases
where he requires the rented land for his own use for carrying on a
trade or business principally. Thus, it is urged, even if a landlord
requires the rented land in order to construct a residential building
for himself, that is not requirement for his own use within the meaning of sub-cl. (a) of this provision. As in this case the landlord
has stated definitely that he required the land for constructing a
residential building for himself and for no other purpose it is contendedforthe appellantthat he cannot take,advantage of s. 13 (3) (a) (ii).
We are of opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the
appellant is correct, and the view taken by the High Court in the case
of Municipal Committee Abohar(') cannot be sustained. It is
true that in sub-cl. (a) the words "for his own use" are not qualified
and at first sight it may appear that a landlord can ask for eviction
from rented land if he requires it for his own use, whatever may be
the use to which he may put it after eviction. Now if sub-els.
(b) and (c) were not there this would be the correct interpretation
of sub-cl. (a). This interpretation has been put by the High Court
in Municipal Committee Abohar('); but in that case the High Court
has not considered the effect of sub-els. (b) and (c) on the meaning
to be given to the words "for his own use" in sub-cl. (a) and seems
to have proceeded as if sub-els. (b) and (c) were not there at all.
We are of opinion that sub-cl. (a) has to be read in this provision
along with sub-els. (b) and (c) and it has to be seen whether the
presence of sub-els. (b) and (c) makes any difference to the meaning
of the words "for his own use" in sub-cl (a), which is otherwise
unqualified. Now if sub-els. (b) and (c) were not there, a landlord
can ask for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession in
the case of rented land if he required it for his own use. In such
circumstances it would have been immaterial what was the use to
which the landlord intended to put the rented land after he gets
possession of it so long as he uses it himself. But as the provision
stands, the landlord cannot get possession of rented land merely by
saying that he requires it "for his own use" (whatever may be the
use to which he may put it after getting possession of it); he has also
to show before he can get possession, firstly, that he is not occupying
in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business any
other such rented land. If (for example) he is in possession of any
other rented land in the urban area concerned for the purpos,e
of his business he cannot ask for eviction of his tenant from his rented
(I') l.L.R. [1959] Punj. 1131.
54
SUPREME COURT 11.EPO!l.TS
[1967] ~ SC.R.
land, even though the rented land of which he may be in possession for the purpose of his business may not be his own land and he
may only be a tenant of that land. This ~hows clearly that though
the words "for his own use" in sub-cl' (a) arc not qualified, the intention of the legislature must have been that if the landlord is in possession of other rented land, whether his own or belonging to somebody
else, for his business he cannot evict a tenant from his own rented
land. It clearly follows from this that the intention when the words
"for his own use" are used in sub-cl. (a) is that the landlord requires
the rented land from which he is asking for eviction of the tcnaat
for his own trade or business. Otherwise we cannot understand
why, if it is the intention of the legislature that the landlord can ask
for eviction of his tenant of rented land for any purpose whatever,
he should not get it back if he is in possession of other rented llnd
for his business. This to our miad clearly implies that sub-cl. (a)
has to be read in the light of sub-cl.(b), and if that is so, the words "for
his own use"' must receive a meaning restricted by the implication
arising from sub-cl. (b).
Turning now to sub-cl. (c), we find that the landlord has not
only to prove before he can get the tenant evicted on the ground
that he requires rented lane! for his own use that he is not in possession of any other rented land for the purpose of his business in that
urban area but also to prove that he had not vacated any rented
land without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act.
Thus he has not only to prove that he is not in possession of any
other rented land for his business but also to prove that he had not
vacated any other rented land which be used principally for business without sufficient cause. For example, even if the landlord is
not in possession of any rented land for bis business but had vacated
other rented land which means land that he had taken for business
without sufficient cause he would still not be entitled to ask for eviction of a tenant from his own rented land. This again shows that
if the landlord had been in possession of land for business principally
and vacated it without sufficient cause he cannot ask for the
eviction of a tenant from his own rented land on the ground that he
requires it for bis own use.
It should therefore be clear that "for his own use" in sub-cl.
(a) means use for the purpose of business principally, for otherwise
we cannot understand why, if the landlord had given up some rented
land which he had taken for business priacipally, he should not be
entitled to· recover his own rented land if he required it (say) as in
this case, for constructing a residential building for himself. The
very fact that sub-els . (b) and (c) require that the landlord should
not be in possession of any rented land for his own business and
should not have given up possession of any other rented land, i.e.,
land which he was principally using for business, show that he can
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
ATTAR SINGH v. !NDBR KUMAR (Wanchoo, !.)
55
only take advantage of sub-cl. (a) if he is able to show that he requires the rented land for business. Otherwise the restrictions
contained in sub-cl. (b) and sub-cl. (c) would become meaningless,
if it were held that sub-cl. (a) would be statisfied if the landlord requi~s the rented land for any purpose as (for example) constructing
a residential house for himself. We are of opinion therefore that
sub-els. (a), (b) and (c) in this provision must be read together,
and reading them together there can be no doubt that when sub-cl.
(a) provides that the landlord requires rented land for his own use,
the meaning there is restricted to use principally for business or
trade. We have already said that the Act is an ameliorative piece
of legislation meant for the protection of tenants, and we have no
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the words "for his own
use" in sub-cl. (a) in the circumstances must be limited in the manner
indicated above, as that will give full protection to tenants of rented land and save them from eviction unless the landlord requires
such land for the same purpose for which it had been let i.e. principally for trade or business. We are therefore of opinion that the
view taken in the case of Municipal Committee Abohar(l) is incorrect,
and as the respondent landlord required the land in this case not for
business or trade principally but only for constructing a house for
himself he is not entitled to eject the appellant under s. 13 (3) (a)
(ii).
In this view of the matter it is unnecessary to consider other
points which were raised in the High Court and which were also
raised before us. The appeal is hereby allowed and the application
for eviction of the appellant rejected. As already ordered, the appellant will pay the costs of the respondent.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal allowed.
(I) l.L.R. (19S9] Punj. 1131.