http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: ZENOBIA BHANOT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: P.K. VASUDEVA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1995

BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  601            1995 SCC  (6) 770  JT 1995 (8)    97        1995 SCALE  (6)356

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Pariooornan. J.      The appellant  in  the  appeals  is  one  Smt.  Zenobia Bhanot, wife  of late  Sri S.N. Bhanot (hereinafter referred to as  the landlady).  The  respondents  are  (1)  Sri  P.K. Vasudeva and  (2) Sri  Surinder Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the tenants). One Sri S.N.Bhanot, IAS, who was working as Commissioner  in the  Government of  Haryana, retired  on 31.8.1975. He  died on 5.1.1985. The appellant is his widow. Late Sri  S.N. Bhanot owned a building - House No. 2, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh.  The said  building was  let out  in  four portions to  four separate  tenants.  They  are  -  (1)  Sri Bhupinder Singh  (one room),  (2) Dr.(Mrs.)  S.K. Gill  (two rooms), (3)  Sri P.K.  Vasudeva (two rooms, kitchen, toilet, varandah, (two  rooms, kitchen,  toilet, varandah, bathroom, etc.) and  (4) Sri  Surinder  Sharma  (two  rooms,  kitchen, varandah, toilet, etc.). 2.   The  East  Punjab  Urban  Rent  Restriction  Act,  1949 (hereinafter referred  to as  the Act)  is applicable in the city of  Chandigarh. The  said Act  was amended  by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Act No. 2 of  1985).  The  Amendment  Act  received  the  assent  of Governor  of   Punjab  on   15.11.1985  and   published   by notification  dated   16.11.1985.  The  said  amendment  was adopted for  the Union Territory of Chandigarh on 15.12.1986 by Notification No.GSR 1287(E) dated 15.12.1986. 3.   In the  appeals, we  are concerned  with the  scope  of Section 13A  of the Act, as amended. By the said provision a right was  conferred on  a "specified  landlord" to  recover immediate possession  of residential  or scheduled building. It will  be useful to extract the relevant provisions of the Act, applicable  in this case, to adjudicate the controversy posed herein:-      "Sec.2(g) "residential  building"  means      any   building    which   is    not    a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

    nonresidential building;"      "Sec.2 (hh)  specified landlord  means a      person who  is entitled  to receive rent      in respect  of a  building  on  his  own      account and  who is  holding or has held      an appointment  in a  public service  or      post in  connection with  the affairs of      the Union or of a State;"      "13A.   Right   to   recover   immediate      possession of  residential or  scheduled      building to  accrue to  certain persons:      Where a  specified landlord at any time,      within one  year prior  to or within one      year after the date of his retirement or      after his retirement but within one year      of the  date of commencement of the East      Punjab    Urban     Rent     Restriction      (Amendment)  Act,   1985,  whichever  is      later,   applies   to   the   Controller      alongwith   a   certificate   from   the      authority competent  to remove  him from      service  indicating   the  date  of  his      retirement  and  his  affidavit  to  the      effect that  he does  not own or possess      any other  suitable accommodation in the      local area in which he intends to reside      to recover possession of his residential      building or  scheduled building,  as the      case may  be, for  his  own  occupation,      there shall accrue, on and from the date      of such  application to  such  specified      landlord,    notwithstanding    anything      contained elsewhere  in this  Act or  in      any other  law for  the  time  being  in      force  or   in  any   contract  (whether      expressed or  implied), custom  or usage      to the  contrary,  a  right  to  recover      immediately  the   possession  of   such      residential   building    or   scheduled      building or  any part  or parts  of such      building if  it is  let out  in part  or      parts:           Provided that  in case  of death of      the specified  landlord,  the  widow  or      widower of  such specified  landlord and      in the  case of  death of  such widow or      widower, a  child or  grand-child  or  a      widowed    daughter-in-law    who    was      dependent upon  such specified  landlord      at  the  time  of  his  death  shall  be      entitled to  make an  application  under      this section to the Controller.-           (a) in  the case  of death  of such      specified    landlord,     before    the      commencement of  the East  Punjab  Urban      Rent Restriction  (Amendment) Act, 1985,      within one year of such commencement;           (b) in  the case  of death  of such      specified    landlord,     after    such      commencement, but before the date of his      retirement, within  one year of the date      of his death;           (c) in  the case  of death  of such      specified    landlord,     after    such      commencement  and   the  date   of   his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

    retirement, within  one year of the date      of such retirement;      and on  the date of such application the      right to  recover the  possession of the      residential   building    or   scheduled      building, as  the  case  may  be,  which      belonged to  such specified  landlord at      the time  of his  death shall  accrue to      the applicant;           Provided further  that  nothing  in      this section  shall be  so construed  as      conferring a  right, on  any  person  to      recover  possession  of  more  than  one      residential   or    scheduled   building      inclusive of  any part  or parts thereof      if it is let out in part or parts :           Provided    further     that    the      Controller  may   give  the   tenant   a      reasonable  period   for   putting   the      specified landlord  or, as  the case may      be,   the    widow,   widower,    child,      grandchild or widowed daughter-in-law in      possession of  the residential  building      or scheduled  building, as  the case may      be, and  may extend  such time so as not      to exceed three months in the aggregate.           Explanation:- For  the purposes  of      this  section   expression  "retirement"      means  termination   of  service   of  a      specified  landlord  otherwise  than  by      resignation."                          (emphasis supplied) 4.   The  appellant,  widow  of  late  Sri  S.N.  Bhanot,  a "specified landlord"  filed four  applications under Section 13A  of   the  Act   against  the   four  tenants  mentioned hereinabove, to whom the building, House No. 2, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh,  was   let  out   in  four  portions.  The  said applications   came   up   before   three   different   Rent Controllers. The  application filed  against  Sri  Bhupinder Singh  was   disposed  of   by  Sri   Gursewak  Singh,  Rent Controller, who ordered eviction on 15.3.1989. Similarly, in the application filed against Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Gill, eviction was ordered  by  Sri  Birender  Singh,  Rent  Controller  on 27.1.1989. The tenants filed revisions, CRP No. 1260 of 1989 and CRP  No. 1306 of 1989, assailing the order of ejectment, passed against  them. They  were disposed  of  by  a  common judgment dated  6.11.1989. The  judgment is reported in 1990 (2) PLR 335. The learned single Judge of the High Court took the view that under the second proviso to Section 13A of the Act the  landlord is  entitled to recover possession of only one residential  building --  one part.  In the  way, events turned out,  the landlord  exercised the  option by choosing the portion of the building, which was let out to Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Gill,  and the  ejectment order  was  upheld  (CRP  No. 1306/89). In  this process,  the ejectment  petition against Sri Bhupinder  Singh was dismissed and the revision filed by the tenant  was allowed (CRP No. 1260/89). The special leave petition (c) No. 14900/91 filed by the appellant against the order in  CRP No.  1260/89 was  dismissed on  the ground  of delay by this Court. 5.   As a  sequal to the above proceedings, the applications filed against Sri Surinder Sharma and Sri P.K. Vasudeva were dismissed  by   the  Rent   Controller  Sri  B.M.  Bajaj  on 20.12.1989. It  was held  that  the  petitions  have  become infructuous in  view of the decision of the High Court dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

6.11.1989  (1990   (2)  PLR   335).  The   appellant  herein (landlady) filed  CRP No. 3025/90 and CRP No. 3040/90 in the High Court  of Punjab  and Haryana and assailed the decision of the  Rent Controller  dated 20.12.1989. When the revision came up  before a  learned single  Judge,  (Sodhi,  J.),  he referred the matter to a Division Bench for consideration by order dated  26.11.1990. The  order of  reference is  in the following terms:-      "The underlying  purpose in enacting the      East Punjab Rent Restriction (Amendment)      Act, 1985  as revealed  by the statement      of  its   Objects  and  Reasons,  is  to      provide a summary procedure for eviction      of  tenants  of  Defence  personnel  and      other  Central   and  State   Government      employees,  from  residential  premises,      which on  retirement, they  may  require      for their  personal occupation. It needs      to be appreciated, in this context, that      when any  residential premises  are  let      out and are taken on rent, what prevails      are the  needs and  requirements of  the      tenant and  these may not necessarily be      in accord  with those  of  the  landlord      when he  seeks back  possession  thereof      for   his    personal   occupation.   To      illustrate  a   specified  landlord,  in      terms of Section 13-A of the East Punjab      Urban Rent  Restriction Act (hereinafter      referred  to  as  ‘the  Act’)  owning  a      single residential  unit  consisting  of      three bed-rooms,  lets out each bed room      separately to  different tenants,  while      he and  his family  comprising his  wife      and three  grown up  children reside  in      government  residential   accommocation,      provided to him, while in service. Would      the  purpose   as   envisaged   by   the      Legislature   be    fulfilled,   if   on      retirement, one  bed  room  is  all  the      accommodation that he can obtain by this      summary procedure.           To take  another example,  while in      service, a  specified  landlord  buys  a      plot of land and builds two huts thereon      leaving the  other  construction  to  be      done after  retirement from  service. In      the meanwhile he lets out these two huts      to two different tenants. On retirement,      is he  to be  granted  the  facility  of      summary eviction from only one such hut?      Many   other    instances   of   similar      anomalous situations  can be  visualised      and  would   indeed   arise.   Absurdity      cannot,  however,   be  inputed  to  the      Legislature.           As is apparent, the Amending Act of      1985 was  enacted to  fulfil a  specific      need and to serve a definite purpose. If      is  imperative,   therefore,  that   its      provisions are so construed, as to be in      accord  with   the   clear   legislative      intent.  The  relevant  provisions  must      thus be  read to  imply that a specified      landlord would  be entitled  to recover.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

    by   the    summary   procedure,    such      accommodation,   not    exceeding    one      residential house,  as  could  meet  his      requirements for personal accommodation.      Seen in this light, the judgment of this      Court in  Sohan Lal  of Patiala  vs. Col      Prem Singh  Grewal and  another, 1989(2)      PLR 139  and Civil Revision 1260 of 1989      (Bhupinder  Singh   vs.   Smt.   Zenobia      Bhanot), decided  on November  6,  1989,      desarve   reconsideration."   (Bhupinder      Singh’s case is reported in 1990 (2) PLR      335).                          (emphasis supplied) 6.   The revisions were heard by the Division Bench of  the High Court, which, by its order dated 20.7.1993.  approved the interpretation placed on  the second  proviso to Section 13A of the  Act  by  earlier  two  decisions  (of single Judges)  Sohan Lal of Patiala vs. Col. Prem Singh  Grewal and  another, (1989(2) PLR 139) Bhupinder Singh vs. Smt. Zenobia Bhanot, (1990 (2) PLR 335), and held thus:-      "The concession  granted  under  Section      13-A of  the Act  was subject to certain      rigours. Second  proviso to this Section      envisages that  a specified landlord can      recover  immediate   possession  of  the      residential or scheduled building and if      the building  has been  let out in parts      to  different   tenants,  the  specified      landlord can  evict  the  tenants  under      this provision  only from the portion in      provision  only   from  the  portion  in      possession of  that tenant. The language      used in  the section  that the specified      landlord could recover possession of one      residential   or    scheduled   building      inclusive of  any part  of parts thereof      if it  is  let  out  in  part  or  parts      suggests that  if  a  residential  or  a      scheduled building  is let out in parts,      each  part   will  become   a  scheduled      building enabling the specified landlord      to avail  the  concession  only  from  a      part."      "On  going   through  the   proviso  and      Section 13-A  as a  whole, I  am also of      the opinion  that  a  landlord  can  get      possession  of   the  tenanted  premises      under the  aforesaid provision  from one      of the  tenants if  there are  more, The      intention of the Legislature in enacting      the  provision  is  that  the  specified      landlord should  be in  position to  get      possession of the tenanted premises from      his   tenant    immediately    on    his      retirement.   The    question    whether      accommodation with  the  landlord  after      taking  possession   from  one   of  the      tenants is  sufficient for  his personal      requirement or  not is  not to  be  gone      into  in   such  proceedings.   On  such      grounds,  the   landlord  has   to  take      recourse to  the  provision  of  Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

    13(3) of the main Act."                          (emphasis supplied) Thereafter, the  appellant moved this Court by special leave petition (c)  No. 1298-99/93  and after obtaining leave, has filed the  appeals against  the aforesaid  judgment  of  the Division Bench of the High Court dated 20.7.1992. 7.   We heard  counsel. The  appellant’s  counsel  submitted that the  interpretation placed on Section 13A of the Act by the High Court is clearly erroneous and fails to give effect to the concluding words in the opening clause of Section 13A of the  Act and has totally misinterpreted and misunderstood Section  13A  and  also  the  second  proviso  thereto.  The submission was  that Section  13A  is  a  special  provision enacted to give relief to ‘specified landlord’, who does not own or  possess any other suitable accommodation for his own occupation, a  right to  recover immediately the  possession of his residential building and if such residential building is let  out in  part or parts, the landlord has the right or option to recover immediately the possession of the building or any  part or parts of such  building. The proviso enjoins that the said right shall not enable the landlord to recover possession  of   more  than  one  residential  or  scheduled building inclusive  of any  part or parts thereof. In a case where the  residential building is let out in part or parts, the landlord  will have  the right to recover the possession of the  building itself,  inclusive of  any  part  or  parts thereof. It is a clear error to conclude that in the case of residential building,  which is  let out  in part  or parts, each part  will become a scheduled building or a residential building restricting  the right of the specified landlord to avail the  concession "only from a part". It is erroneous to surmise that the landlord can get possession of the tenanted premises under  Section 13A  of the  Act  from  one  of  the tenants only,  if there  are more  than one and the question whether  accommodation   of  the   landlord   after   taking possession from  one tenant  is sufficient  for his personal requirement  or  not,  is  not  to  be  gone  into  in  such proceedings. Counsel  submitted that  Section 13A of the Act should be  construed as  a whole and reasonably, and bearing in mind  the Statement  of Objects and Reasons for inserting Section 13A  of the  Act in  the main  Statute. On the other hand,  counsel   for  the  respondents  submitted  that  the interpretation placed by two earlier decisions of Punjab and Haryana High  Court in  Sohan Lal  of Patiala  vs. Col. Prem Singh Grewal  and another, (1989(2) PLR 139) Bhupinder Singh vs. Smt. Zenobia Bhanot, (1990 (2) PLR 335), and also in the decision under appeal, are warranted by the terms of Section 13A of the Act. 8.   The Statement  of Objects and Reasons for incorporating Section 13A of the Act is as follows, as is seen from Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 30.10.1985 :-      "There   have been  representations that      defence personnel and other Central  and      State Government  Employees  are  facing      considerable  difficulties   in  getting      their residential  houses  vacated  from      tenants. The  existing provisions of the      East Punjab  Urban Rent Restriction Act,      1949 do not provide any immediate relief      to such  employees. Cases  have come  to      the notice of the State Government where      such  personnel   are  forced   to  face      protracted    litigation    in    courts      involving  considerable   hardship   and      financial loss. The Kendrya Sainik Board

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

    has  also   been  pressing   the   State      Government to  provide  relief  in  this      regard.           With  a   view  to   mitigate   the      hardship   being    faced   by   defence      personnel and  other Central  and  State      Government employees, there is a need to      amend  the   East  Punjab   Urban   Rent      Restriction Act,  1949 providing summary      procedure for  eviction of  tenants from      the residential  and scheduled buildings      of defence  personnel and  other Central      and State  Government employees  on  the      eve  of   their  retirement   for  their      personal occupation  and  enabling  such      employees to  get such buildings vacated      from tenants within one year prior to or      within  one   year  after  the  date  of      retirement  or  after  their  retirement      within  one   year  of   the   date   of      commencement   of    this    legislative      measure. In  the case of death of such a      person the  benefit of  seeking eviction      through  summary   procedure   is   also      proposed to  be granted  to his widow or      widower as the case may be, a child or a      grand child  or a  widowed  daughter-in-      law, who was dependent upon him.           Further    safeguarding     against      misuse, the  Bill also makes a provision      for imprisonment and fine in case such a      person   after    having    evicted    a      tenant/tenants through summary procedure      does  not  occupy  the  building  within      three months  of  lets  out  it  or  any      portion thereof  within three  years  of      such eviction  and  evicted  tenant  has      also been  made entitled  to restoration      of  possession   of  the   building   in      question."                          (emphasis supplied) 9.   On an  anxious consideration  of the  rival pleas urged before us,  we are  of the opinion that the decisions of the Punjab and  Haryana High  Court in  Sohan Lal’s (supra) case and in  Bhupinder Singh’s  (supra) case, which were followed in the judgment under appeal, are erroneous in law. In Sohan Lal’s case  Gupta, J.,  at p.142,  adverted  to  the  second proviso to Section 13A of the Act and stated thus:-      "Even if  it be  assumed for the sake of      argument, that  the whole  building  was      let  out   in  different  parts  to  the      different tenants,  even then  according      to the  said proviso, the landlord could      not recover  possession of more than one      residential building  inclusive  of  any      part or  parts thereof  if it is let out      in part or parts."      In so  formulating the law, the learned Judge failed to advert  to   the  Statement   of  Objects  and  Reasons  for introducing Section 13A and also the concluding words of the opening clause in Section 13A itself. At the same time undue emphasis has been given to the second proviso alone, to hold that when  the whole  building is let out in different parts to  different   tenants,  the  landlord  could  not  recover possession of  more than  one residential building inclusive

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

of any  part or  parts thereof,  if it is let out in part or parts. The  landlord could   claim  ejectment of  one of the tenant from  one part of the building and not of the tenants from all  parts of  the building.  The  latter  decision  in Bhupinder Singh’s  (supra) has  only  followed  the  earlier decision, wherein the learned Judge stated thus:-      "Second   proviso   to   the   aforesaid      section, as  reproduced above,  makes it      abundantly so considered as conferring a      right to recover possession of more than      one residential  or  scheduled  building      inclusive of  any part  or parts thereof      if the  same was  let  out  in  part  or      parts.  The  combined  reading  of  this      proviso alongwith  the provision  of the      section leaves  no manner  of doubt that      the  landlord   is  required   to   take      possession of  the building  or part  or      parts as let out to a tenant."      In the  judgment under  appeal the  learned Judges have held that  when a residential building is let out in part or parts,  each   part  will  become  a  residential  building, enabling the specified landlord to avail the concession only from a  part and the question as to whether accommodation of the landlord,  after  taking  possession  from  one  of  the tenants, is  sufficient for his personal requirement or not, is not  to be  gone into  in such  proceedings. The Division Bench did  not advert,  to the  salient aspects mentioned in the order  of  reference  dated  26.11.1990.  We  hold  that Section 13A  of the  Act, construed  as a  whole,  does  not warrant the  conclusion arrived  at in  the three  decisions referred to hereinabove. 10.  The title to Section 13A states that the right is given to a ‘specified landlord’ to recover immediate possession of residential or  scheduled building. The Statement of Objects and Reasons  also states  that  the  summary  procedure  for eviction of  tenants  from  the  residential  and  scheduled buildings is  provided in  Section 13A. The crucial words in Section 13A,  clearly point  out  that,  where  a  specified landlord, at  any time within one year........applies to the Rent  Controller...........to   recover  possession  of  his residential building  for his  own occupation........, there shall accrue,  on and  from the  date of such application to such   specified   landlord,.......,a   right   to   recover immediately   the    possession    of    such    residential building......or any  part or  parts of such building, if it is let  out in  part or parts. The provisions of the Statute are clear.  The right  is given  to a  specified landlord to recover immediate possession of the residential building. He should have  retired from  the service  and should  file  an affidavit that  he  does  not  own  and  possess  any  other suitable accommodation  to reside.  In such  a case,  he can require possession  of his residential or scheduled building for his  own occupation.  The right is given to the landlord notwithstanding any  other provision in the Act or any other law or  any contract to the contrary, to recover immediately the  possession   of  such  residential  building.  If  such residential building  is let  out in  parts, the landlord is given the  option to  recover immediately  the possession of such residential  building itself  or any  part or  parts of such building,  in cases  where it  is let  out in  part  or parts. In  cases where the building is let out in parts, the parts so let out, will form part of the building itself. All that the  second provision  provides is  that the said right shall not  enable the landlord to recover possession of more

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

than one  residential or scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts thereof, if the building is let out in part or parts. There  are no  words in  Section 13A  of the  Act  to import the idea that if a residential building is let out in parts, each  part will become a residential building thereby fettering the  specified landlord  to avail  the  concession only from  a part.  Section 13A, which gives a special right to the  landlord, is  to enable him to exercise the right to recover the  residential building for his own occupation, if he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation. In interpreting  the Section, it is a far-cry to state, that the question  as  to  whether  the  accommodation  with  the landlord after  taking possession from one of the tenants is sufficient for his personal requirement or not, is not to be gone into  in such  proceedings. The  right is  given to the landlord, in case where he does not own or possess any other suitable  accommodation   to  recover   possession  of   his residential building.  If the  building is let out in parts, any or  all such parts can also be recovered, since the part or parts  let out,  form part  of the  building. Section 13A clearly points  out that  the landlord  has an option to get the  recovery   (the  immediate   possession)  of  the  said residential building  or any part or parts of such building, in a case where the building is let out in parts. The option so given  to the  landlord by  the concluding  words in  the opening clause  of Section  13A, in cases where the building is let  out in  part or  parts, either  to recover the whole building  or   to  recover  in  part  or  parts  thereof  is reinforced  by   the  second   proviso.  By  no  stretch  of reasoning,  the   second  proviso  to  Section  13A  can  be construed as  nullifying the  main provision  of Section 13A and, in  particular, the  concluding words  in  the  opening clause of  Section 13A  whereby the  option is  given to the landlord to  recover the  possession of residential building itself or  any part  or parts  thereof in  cases  where  the building is  let out  in part  or parts.  We hold  that  the reasoning and conclusion to the contrary in the two reported judgments of  the Punjab  and Haryana High Court and also in the  judgment  under  appeal  dated  20.7.1992  are  clearly erroneous and  unjustified. On the other hand, the reasoning contained  in  the  order  of  reference  dated  26.11.1990, appeals to  us, as  reasonable and  fair and  the same is in accord with  the legislative  intent  and  the  language  of Section 13A  of the  Act. We  set aside  the judgment of the Division Bench  of the  Punjab and  Haryana High Court dated 20.7.1992 appealed against herein and allow the appeals.      There shall be no order as to costs.