Ashok Kumar v. Ved Prakash
Supreme Court of India, 17 December 2009, 2 judges
A landlord may seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973; the tenant's appeal was dismissed.
Facts
A shop in Sohna, District Gurgaon, was let to the appellant in 1982, where he carried on business as a commission agent. The original landlord sought his eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, pleading that he needed the shop to settle his elder son in the same business. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on 31.05.2004, the appellate authority affirmed, and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the tenant's revision on 5 March 2007. The original landlord died while the revision was pending and the present respondents were substituted. Before the Supreme Court the tenant argued that Section 13(3)(a) allowed eviction for own occupation only from a residential building, so a non-residential shop could not be recovered on that ground.
Questions before the Court
- Whether a landlord can evict a tenant from non-residential premises on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, when the provision speaks only of residential buildings.
- Whether the eviction proceeding failed because the original landlord died during the pendency of the revision.
What the Court held
- Following Harbilas Rai Bansal, Rakesh Vij and Mohinder Prasad Jain, the correct interpretation of bona fide requirement of a landlord of a residential building under Section 13 must include a non-residential building as well.
- Mohinder Prasad Jain, decided under the same Haryana Act, cannot be said to be bad law on the ground that it usurped legislative functions; the decisions cited by the tenant, who urged that it be referred to a larger Bench, did not show otherwise.
- A decision on a different but very similar enactment, such as the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, can hold persuasive value even though the two laws were made by different legislatures.
- Since the eviction petition pleaded that the requirement was for the son who became landlord on the original landlord's death, the proceeding did not abate; the point had also not been raised in the High Court. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Why it matters
The judgment applies to the Haryana rent law the line of decisions holding that the bona fide requirement ground extends to non-residential premises, and declines to treat Mohinder Prasad Jain as bad law, as the tenant had urged in seeking a reference to a larger Bench. It also notes Satyawati Sharma, where a similar residential-only restriction in the Delhi Rent Control Act was held to violate Article 14, and explains that a decision on one legislature's statute may be persuasive for a similar provision in another.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Therefore, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be relied upon for the purpose of holding that the Court is not conferred with the power to entertain an eviction petition against a tenant relating to non-residential premises as, in our view, the correct interpretation of bonafide requirement of a landlord of a residential building must include a non-residential building as well in view of the decisions referred to hereinabove.”
“Thus, in view of the overall discussions made hereinabove, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that an eviction petition filed by a landlord for eviction of a tenant cannot be filed under Section 13 of the Act when such eviction proceeding relates to a non-residential building.”
“Looking at the averments made in the eviction petition, where the original landlord has categorically pleaded that the requirement was for his son who presently is the landlord because of the death of the original plaintiff, the question of abatement of the eviction proceeding cannot arise at all.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 13, Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
- Section 13, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
Related judgments
- Follows Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab (1995)“in view of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that a landlord can seek eviction of his tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement not only from residential premises but also from a non-residential premises” (page 11)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Ashok Kumar v. Ved Prakash & Ors.
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 8417 of 2009 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10675 of 2007)
- Decided
- 17 December 2009
- Bench
- Tarun Chatterjee, V. S. Sirpurkar
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Tarun Chatterjee, J., with V. S. Sirpurkar, J. also signing. No separate opinion.
Questions on this case
8 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.