Ajmer Singh vs Ranjit Singh

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.5.1986 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana holdihg that the Petitioner is not a "specified landlord" within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) and is, therefore, not entitled to seek eviction of his tenant by invoking summary jurisdiction u/s 13-A of the Act.

The Petitioner retired from Government service as Superintendent Jail on 28 2.1983. He purchased property bearing No. B-XIII-388, Kucha Harnam Dass, Jail Road, Ludhiana on 8.4.1985. The Respondent was already in occupation of the same as tenant.

The question that comes in for consideration is whether qua a property purchased within a year after his retirement by a person who had held appointment in a public service, he comes within the definition of "Specified landlord" as contained in Section 2 (hh) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that it is not necessary that such a person must be a landlord qua the property on the date of his retirement from service. The acquisition of the property by him subsequent to retirement but within the period of one year would bring him within the definition of "specified landlord". Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, has contended that Section 2 (hh) and Section 13-A were incorporated in the Act to enable the defence personnel, Central and State Government employees to secure eviction of tenants from the residential and scheduled building which they own on the eve of their retirement or soon thereafter and to acheive this object summary remedy has been provided thereby. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to reproduce here the relevant provisions:

Section 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.

Section 13-A: 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 along with 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 and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local areas 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....

The matter is in fact not res integra. An analogous provisions exist in Section 13 (3-A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. It is, inter alia, provided therein that in a case of a non residential building, a landlord who stands retired or discharged as non-commissioned officer from armed forces of the Union of India and requires it for his personal use, may, within a period of three years from the date of retirement or discharge, as the case may be, apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. The scope of this provision was elaborately discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in Sohan Singh v. Dhan Raj Singh 1984 Haryana Acts & Precedents, 74. It was held that viewed in the correct perspective the real intent of the legislature is to give the benefit to a member of the Armed Forces who whilst in service is the landlord of non-residential building on his retirement for the purposes of re-settlement. The language employed in the statute is a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the Armed Forces. It was further observed that the expression ''landlord'' is a relative term and, therefore, it must have a meaning with reference to the tenant and premises. There seems hardly to be any doubt that the expression would mean a landlord who was a landlord as such qua the tenant and the premises on the date of his retirement. It is not a benefit given to a retired serviceman to exercise a roving right over any premises which he may choose to acquire within three years of his retirement for evicting the tenant therefrom. It is a benefit conferred upon a serving member of the Armed Forces on his retirement for the purposes of re-settlement.

The analogous provision inserted in Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was considered by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Bhannu Aththayya v. Comdr. Kanshal 1979 (2) R.C. J. 338. It was held that the expression ''landlord'' is a relative term and, therefore, it must have a meaning with reference to the tenant and the premises. That expression can have no reference to the member of the Armed Forces who becomes a landlord qua a tenant of a particular premises, after his retirement.

With an attempt to distinguish Sohan Singh''s and Bhannu Aththayya ''s cases (supra) the learned Counsel for the Petitioner laid special emphasis on the fact that there was no provision like Section 2(hh) of the Act in Sohan Singh''s case. That is no doubt so. But in Bhannu Aththayya''s case (supra) the Court dealt with the scope of the Bombay Act which provides for (i) a landlord who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, or (ii) a landlord who was such member and is duly retired. ''Landlord'' contemplated, by the relevant provision of the Bombay Act is thus, akin to the ''specified landlord'' defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act.

It is to be noted that Sections 2 (hh) and 13-A were inserted in the Act by Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985. It is educative to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act, which, inter alia, contain the following statement:

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 obtaining such employees to get such buildings vacated from tenants within one year prior to or within one year after the date of their retirement or after their retirement within one year of the date of commencement of this legislative measure.

There is no scope for doubt that "specified landlord" within the meaning of Section 2 (hh) of the Act is that person who is a landlord and is holding or has held an appointment in respect of a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of the State. A person in a public service may be a landlord within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act but he shall acquire the character of "specified landlord" u/s 2 (hh) and shall have the right to seek eviction of his tenant by taking resort to summary remedy provided by Section 13-A of the Act only within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement An essential requisite, therefore, is that he should be a landlord within the meaning of Section 2 (c) read with Section 2(hh) of the Act at least within one year prior to and on the date of his retirement. If he acquires the character of a landlord in respect of premises qua a particular tenant after his retirement he would not come within the definition of "specified landlord" and cannot have recourse to the remedy of Section 13-A of the Act which provide for summary proceedings for eviction of the tenant. In my view, therefore, the case in hand is fully covered by the ratio of law laid down in Sohan Singh''s case (supra) and I am bound to follow the same.

There is, thus, no merit in this petition which is dismissed but without any order as to costs.