Jai Chand vs Sohan Lal and another

R.S. Narula, C.J.—The application of the landlord-petitioner, dated March 4, 1970, for the eviction of respondent No. 1 from the residential premises in dispute on the ground of alleged subletting of the premises to the other respondent and the alleged transferring of his tenancy rights therein to that respondent, and on the additional ground of having ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, was allowed by the order of the Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., dated May 1, 1971. In the tenant''s appeal against the order of the Rent Controller'' Shri Jagmohan Lal Tandon, the Appellate Authority (District Judge)'', Ambala, held on July 2, 1971, that it had not been proved that Sohan Lal tenant-respondent had sublet or transferred his tenancy rights in favour of his brother Sham Lal, and that even if subletting had taken place, it would date back to sometime prior to November 21, 1969, and would not, therefore, entitle the landlord to evict his tenant, as the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act) had been made applicable to Ambala Cantt. only with effect from that date (that is November 21, 1969). On the second issue it was held that the finding of the Rent Controller about Sohan Lal tenant having ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for a continuous period of more than four months had not been challenged before him, but the same did not entitle the petitioner to evict his tenant as that ground had also come into existence perior to November 21, 1969.

In this petition for revision of the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority referred to above, Mr. Manmohan Singh Liberhan, the learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner, has submitted that by the Central Government''s notification No. SRO-55, dated January 24, 1974, issued u/s 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act (46 of 1957), the Central Government has extended to all the Cantonments in the States of Haryana and Punjab the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) with retrospective effect from January 26, 1950, with certain modifications and subject to certain exceptions with none of which we are concerned in the present case. It is urged by the learned counsel that since the tenant ceased to occupy the premises for more than four months after January 26, 1950 (date of the coming into force of the Act), and before March 4, 1970 (the date of presenting the application for ejectment), his client is entitled to claim a direction for the eviction of the tenant-respondent from the premises in dispute on the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority which was not even questioned before the Appellate Authority.

Mr. Kesho Ram Mahajan, the learned counsel for Sohan Lal respondent, does not dispute that Sohan Lal himself had ceased to occupy the premises sometime after January 26, 1950, and before March 4, 1970 and that the said period of non-occupation of the house was for more than four months, but submits that this does not furnish a ground for the eviction of the petition for the simple reason that it has been found as a fact by the Rent Controller, as well as by the Appellate Authority that Sohan Lal''s brother Sham Lal respondent No. 2 has admittedly been living in the premises throughout the period of non-occupation of the same by the tenant. The submission of the counsel is that Sham Lal being the younger brother of Sohan Lal is a member of Sohan Lal''s family, and since the premises have never been left unoccupied by the tenant in the sense that his family members have been occupying the same, he is not liable to eviction u/s 13(2)(v) of the Act. The relevant part of that provision reads as below:--

A landlord who seeks to eviet his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied--

(i) to(iv)

(v) that where the building is situated in a place other than a hill-station, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building------

It is not in dispute that the building in question is not situate at a hill-station, but is situate at Ambala Cantt. The finding of fact recorded by the two Tribunals about the tenant having ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause cannot be questioned before me. Nor has it been shown how that finding is either improper or illegal. In contradistinction to clause (d) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (wherein it is provided that protection against eviction would not be available to a tenant to whom premises were let for residence and who has neither himself resided therein nor any member of his family has resided in the premises for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof, the provision in clause (v) of subsection (2) of section 13 of the Act takes away the statutory protection against eviction from a tenant who has himself failed to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause notwithstanding that his family member may have been occupying the same during the relevant period. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to determine whether the tenant''s younger brother can or cannot on the evidence on the record of this case be considered to be a member of the tenant''s family. Right to evict a tenant and to obtain possession of one''s own property from a tenant is a fundamental right of a landlord on which reasonable restrictions have been imposed by the Rent Restriction Acts. Those restrictions hare to be interpreted strictly. The protection aforrded to tenants by the Rent Restriction Acts has to be contained within the circumscribed limits of the relevant statute. In sofar as no protection against eviction is available to a tenant under the Act, who has himself ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without any reasonable cause, without any other condition being satisfied, I am bound to allow this petition for eviction against the tenant as the above-mentioned ground for his eviction has been proved.

For the foregoing reasons I allow this petition reverse the decision of the Appellate Authority, and restore in its place the direction given by the Rent Controller to the tenant-respondent to put the landlord petitioner in possession of the building in question. In the peculiar circumstances of the case I allow the tenant time till January 31, 1975, to vacate the premises. As eviction has been ordered in the circumstances created by a notification issued by the Central Government after the filing of the petition for eviction and even after filing of this revision petition, I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout. The order staying the eviction of the tenant-respondent till January 31, 1975, shall remain in force only if the tenant pays to the landlord-petitioner or deposits in the executing Court all arrears of rent within three weeks from today.