AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit Singh Bains, J.—An application for eviction of the Petitioners was filed u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, by the applicant-Respondents from the demised premises before the Rent Controller.
Respondent No 1 is a Major in the Army serving somewhere on the borders. It is alleged that the disputed bungalow was purchased by the applicant Respondents on November 12, 1968, for Rs. 22,000/- fo" personal use and occupation ; that at the time the bunglow was purchased, it was being used as officers Mess on rent at Rs. 100/- P. M; that the bunglow was not in a very happy condition and its physical condition further deteriorated due to non coupation, misuse and lack of care. It was further alleged that some fixtures and fittings had been removed from the bunglow and the applicant-Respondents brought it to the notice of the officers concerned but no action was taken. As the condition deteriorated from bad to worse. letters were written by the applicant Respondents to the Sub Area Commander but no action was taken. It was pointed out that since the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the Petitioners were liable to be ejected therefrom. It was also pointed out that the bungalow was required for personal use and occupation by the applicant Respondents and on that score also the ejectment application was liable to succeed. The Petitioners resisted the application and controverted the allegations made in the application The tenancy was, however, admitted. The parties contested on the following issues:
Whether the Respondents are liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute on the grounds given in the ejectment application ?
Relief.
The Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 against the applicant Respondents and in favour of the Petitioners and it was held that the premises in dispute were not required by the applicant-Respondents for personal use and occupation. In view of this finding, application for ejectment was dismissed.
Dissatisfied by the order of Rent Controller, the applicant-Respondents filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal. It was held that the condition of the premises has been materially impaired both in value and utility and the tenant is responsible for it; and that the premises are unfit for human occupation. Consequently, the appellate authority allowed the application of applicant-Respondents for ejectment of the Petitioner. Hence, this revision petition by them.
The only point urged by Mr. Kuldip Singh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Punjab Rent Act) are not applicable to the demised premises. His argument is that the demised premises are situated in Jullundur Cantonment Area, which belonged to the Defence Department, and were given as an old grant to its previous owner who had sold it to applicant-Respondents and as such the premises do not fall within the scope of the Punjab Rent Act. Mr. Sarin, Learned Counsel for applicant-Respondents, contends that the Punjab Rent Act was extended to the Cantonment Areas in the States of Punjab and Haryana by the Ceneral Government u/s 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957. vide Notification No. SRO-7, dated November 21, 1969. Section 3 is in the following terms:
The Central Government may, by notification in the offical Gazette, extend to any cantonment with such restriction and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation which is in force on the date of the notification in the State in which cantonment is situated:
Provided that nothing contained in any enactment so extended shall apply to:
(a) any premises within the cantonment belongnig to the Government;
(b) any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government in respect of premises within the cantonment taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government ; or
(c) any house within the cantonment which is, or may be, appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923.
Mr. Kuldip Singh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, placed his reliance on proviso (b) to Section 3 ibid which provides that the notification shall not apply to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the government in respect of premises within the Cantonment taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government. I do not find any merit in the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Admittedly, the demised premises in dispute were not given to the original owner as an old grant. Only land was given to the original owner who had himself constructed building thereon. Hence proviso (b) to Section 3 ibid is of no avail in the present case. The land as such does not include the premises The premises includes the building and land attached to it. The word "premises" is not defined under the Punjab Rent Act. However, its Section 2 (a) derines(sic) '' building '' which means any building or part of a building, including any land godwons, out-houses. The word "premises" is defined u/s 2 (i) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as under:
2(1) "premises" means any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose, and includes:
(i) the garden, grounds and outhouses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of the building:
(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of the building ; but does not include a room in a hotel or lodging house.
This shows that the ''premises'' means any building or a part of a building and includes land which is attached to such building Same is the definition under Delhi Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. Section (c) defines the ''premises''. Under West Bengal Premises (Rent Control) Act, Section 2 defines ''premises'' which means any building and it includes attached land. By close reading and scrutiny of the definition of premises in various rent statutes, the word premises'' would mean building or part of a building and any land attached to such building. Consequently, proviso (b) to Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws Act does not in anyway advance the case of the Petitioners, proviso (b) to Section 3 relates to any tenaury created by a grant from the Government in res-pec of premises within the Cantoment(sic) taken on lease. Premises, as observed earlier, must be building or part of the land attached to it. It was only land which was given on lease to the original owner by a grant from the Government and not the building thereon. As a matter of fact there was no building in the land and it was only land which was given to the original owner as grant. Building was constructed later on by the original owner from whom the applicant Respondents purchased the present premises It this view of the matter, I hold that the provisions of the Punjab Rent Act. are applicable to the present case.
If the argument of Mr. Kuldip Singh Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is accepted, than the notification of the Central Government dated 21-11-69 extending the provision of Punjab Rent Act to the Cantonment areas in the State of Punjab will be meaningless and redundat because all the land in the Cantonment areas are given as a grant from the Government. If the intention of the legislature was to exclude the lands also from the purview of Punjab Pent Act in the Cantorment areas, as Mr. Kuldip Singh wants this Court to hold, than there was no meaning in issuing the notification by the Central Government in extending the provisions of the Punjab Rent Act to the Canionment(sic) areas in Punjab State. In Rahman though Rangrao v. Sural Mai1, it has been observed by their Lordships of the Full Bench regarding interpretation of statutes as under:
The Court should not give that interpretation to the language employed in a statute which leads to absurd and ridiculous results, but that if two obstructions are possible on the language employed then the one that is reasonable, should be accepted.
The plain reading of the language used in proviso (b) to Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control laws) Act shows that it is the tenancy in respect of the premises within a Cantonment created by a grant from the Government which is exempt from the purview of the Punjab Kent Act. As noticed earlier, by the old grant, only the land was given to one Mewa Lal, the original lessee,and no tenancy or other like relationship was created by the grant in respect of the demised premises. Hence proviso (b) to Section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case.
In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with costs.