REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No.8317 of 2006

SWAMI NATH                … PETITIONER   Vs.

NIRMAL SINGH … RESPONDENT

WITH S.L.P.(C) NOS. 11719 OF 2006 AND 11720 OF 2006

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006  

was taken up for hearing along with Special  

Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.11719 of 2006 and

11720 of 2006 as the issues involved in all the  

three  matters  were  the  same.  All  the  three  

matters  relate  to  interpretation  of  the  

provisions of Section 13-B read with Section  

18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction  

Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as “the 1949  

Act”.

  2. The  common  case  in  all  these  three  Special  

Leave Petitions is that the Respondents as Non-

Resident  Indians  filed  petitions  before  the  

concerned Rent Controller under Section 13-B of  

the 1949 Act for eviction of the Petitioners  

from  their  respective  tenanted  premises  and  

that all the three petitions were allowed and  

eviction of the Petitioners was ordered.  In  

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006,  

the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of  

the Rent Controller, Phagwara, moved the High  

Court in Civil Revision No.1146 of 2006.   

2

3. In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11719 of  

2006,  the  Petitioner  being  aggrieved  by  the  

order  of  eviction  passed  by  the  Rent  

Controller, Phillaur, moved the High Court in  

Civil Revision No.5979 of 2004 against the said  

order of the Rent Controller.  Similarly, the  

Petitioner  in  Special  Leave  Petition  (Civil)  

No.11720 of 2006 moved the High Court in Civil  

Revision No.5978 of 2004, since both the two  

matters were disposed of by a common judgment  

and order dated 8th May, 2006.  

4. The main challenge of the Petitioners in Civil  

Revision  No.5978  of  2004  and  5979  of  2004  

before  the  High  Court  was  that  the  

Respondent/landlord  was  not  entitled  to  seek  

ejectment of the tenants from the property in  

question as he already had a shop room in his  

possession measuring 12 feet x 12 feet and was  

not, therefore, in bona fide need of the said  

3

premises.  The  said  stand  of  the  

Petitioners/tenants  was  rejected  both  by  the  

Rent  Controller  as  well  as  the  High  Court.  

Having regard to the provisions of Section 13-B  

read with Section 18-A of the 1949 Act, both  

the forums were of the view that as a Non-

Resident Indian, the Respondent was entitled to  

the benefit of the said provisions for recovery  

of possession contained therein.

5. Similar  submissions  were  advanced  by  the  

Petitioner  in  Special  Leave  Petition  (Civil)  

No.8317  of  2006  before  the  High  Court.   In  

addition,  it  was  urged  that  under  the  

provisions of Section 13-B, the landlord was  

entitled to exercise his right of option for  

immediate possession only once and that having  

obtained vacant possession of a shop room in  

the building in question, such right had been  

exhausted  and  the  landlord  was  no  longer  

4

entitled  to  immediate  possession  as  

contemplated in Section 13-B of the 1949 Act.  

It was sought to be urged that a shop room in a  

building would have to be treated as a separate  

unit or building for the purposes of Section  

13-B of the above Act as otherwise the very  

object of Section 13-B would be frustrated as  

the landlord would have to approach the Court  

repeatedly  for  obtaining  possession  of  

different parts of the building, which was not  

contemplated in the said Section.

6. The High Court negated both the submissions and  

while  upholding  the  view  taken  by  the  Rent  

Controller with regard to the bona fide need of  

the landlord of the suit premises, the High  

Court also rejected the additional submissions  

regarding the interpretation of Section 13-B as  

sought to be urged on behalf of the Petitioners  

herein.

5

7. Learned  senior  counsel,  Mr.  Neeraj  Jain,  

appearing for the Petitioners in Special Leave  

Petition  (Civil)  No.8317  of  2006,  contended  

that the High Court had failed to appreciate  

the scheme and object of the 1949 Act which was  

meant to be a beneficial piece of legislation  

to protect the tenants from eviction from their  

tenanted  premises  from  landlords  whose  needs  

were not as great as that of the tenants.  It  

was  urged  that  Section  13-B  had  been  

incorporated  in  the  1949  Act  in  2001  as  an  

exception  to  the  provisions  of  the  Act  to  

accommodate  Non-Resident  Indians  who  after  

their  return  from  abroad  needed  their  own  

premises for the purposes of residence or even  

for starting a new business.  Even then the  

right  to  immediate  possession  given  to  

landlords  under  Section  13-B  in  the  special  

circumstances was restricted and a choice of  

6

obtaining immediate possession of the premises  

was restricted to one choice only.

8. It was also urged that the provisions of Sub-

section (1) of Section 13-B would have to be  

read in a manner so as not to defeat the main  

purpose  and  object  of  the  Act.   It  was  

submitted  that  recourse  could,  therefore,  be  

had to the provisions of Section 13-B only once  

which would support the theory that each shop  

room or other premises in the building would  

have to be treated as a separate unit and the  

landlord would be entitled to make a choice as  

to  which  of  the  units  he  wished  to  take  

possession of immediately.  It was submitted  

that in these cases, since the landlord had  

already obtained possession of a portion of the  

building,  it  must  be  deemed  that  he  had  

exhausted his option as given under Section 13-

B and in order to evict the other tenants from  

7

the premises in question, he would have to file  

regular  eviction  petitions  before  the  Rent  

Controller concerned, who would have to deal  

with the same in the regular manner without  

resorting  to  the  emergency  provisions  of  

Section 13-B of the 1949 Act.

9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also  

contended that having regard to the definition  

of “Non-resident Indian” in Section 2(dd) of  

the 1949 Act, such Non-resident Indian would  

mean a person of Indian origin, who is either  

permanently  or  temporarily  settled  outside  

India for taking up employment outside India or  

for carrying on a business or vocation outside  

India  or  for  any  other  purpose,  in  such  

circumstances as would indicate his intention  

to stay outside India for an uncertain period.  

It  was  urged  that  the  emphasis  was  on  the  

condition that the NRI would be staying outside  

8

India and in order to avail the benefits of  

Section 13-B, he would have to return to India  

permanently.

10. Mr. Jain submitted that the Respondent had not  

been  able  to  establish  that  he  was  an  NRI  

within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of the 1949  

Act and was not, therefore, entitled to the  

benefits of Section 13-B thereof.  Mr. Jain  

reiterated  his  stand  that  having  filed  an  

Ejectment Petition in respect of one of the  

three  shop  rooms,  the  subsequent  Ejectment  

Petitions were not maintainable and no order of  

ejectment  could  have  been  passed  in  respect  

thereof.  Learned counsel submitted that the  

Rent Controller had exceeded his jurisdiction  

in passing the order of ejectment in respect of  

all the three matters despite the bar under the  

proviso  to  Section  13-B(1)  of  the  aforesaid  

Act.

9

11. The  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  

Petitioners were strongly opposed on behalf of  

the Respondent/landlord. It was urged that the  

language of Section 13-B(1) of the 1949 Act was  

clear  and  unambiguous  and  the  suggested  

interpretation  of  the  proviso  thereof  would  

lead to an absurd situation if the building of  

the NRI was under the possession of various  

tenants and he was entitled to exercise his  

right of summary proceedings only in respect of  

one of the said units. It was submitted that  

such  an  interpretation  would  be  absolutely  

contrary to the objects sought to be achieved  

by the introduction of Section 13-B in the 1949  

Act by way of amendment in 2001.

12. Reliance was placed on the decision of this  

Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini [JT  

2005 (12) SC 442] where the same question had  

come up for consideration and it was observed  

1

that on a plain reading of the provisions of  

Section 13-B, it would be obvious that once in  

a life-time possession is given to an NRI to  

get one building vacated in a summary manner.  

It was also submitted that the ownership of the  

Respondent/landlord  in  respect  of  only  one  

building  had  not  been  disputed  by  the  

Petitioners and the only contention that was  

raised on their behalf was that each separate  

tenancy  in  a  building  would  amount  to  a  

separate unit and after exhausting the right of  

summary  possession  once,  it  was  no  longer  

available to the NRI landlord to exercise such  

an option for the second time to a particular  

building, which contention had been negated by  

the Courts below.

13. We  have  carefully  considered  the  submissions  

made on behalf of the respective parties and we  

are unable to agree with the submissions made  

1

on  behalf  of  the  Petitioners.   The  

interpretation  sought  to  be  given  to  the  

proviso  to  Section  13-B(1)  of  the  1949  Act  

would lead to an absurd situation which was not  

contemplated  by  the  legislature  while  

introducing the provisions of Section 13-B by  

way of amendment in 2001. The very object of  

the amendment would be frustrated if the narrow  

and  constricted  meaning  being  canvassed  on  

behalf of the petitioners is to be accepted.

14. The provisions of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act  

have been correctly interpreted and dealt with  

in  Baldev Singh Bajwa’s case (supra) and in  

that  view  of  the  matter,  the  Special  Leave  

Petitions must fail and are dismissed.  I.A.  

No.2 of 2006 filed in SLP(C) No.11719 of 2006  

by Gurdeep Ram to be impleaded as party in his  

personal  capacity,  is  also  disposed  of,  

accordingly.  

1

15. There will, however, be no order as to costs.   

…………………………………………J.                               (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J.                              (A.K. PATNAIK)

…………………………………………J.    (ANIL R. DAVE)

New Delhi Dated: 07.09.2010

1