BABU RAM GOPAL AND OTHERSversusMATHRA DASS

                   BABU RAM GOPAL AND OTHERS
A                              v.
                          MATHRA DASS

                            FEBRUARY 28, 1990

B      [LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND V. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

         EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT,
    1949: Section I3(2)(v)-Tenant-Temporarily suspending actual
    physical user of premises-Whether liable for eviction-Whether non-
    occupation must continue till the date of filing of eviction application.

C       INTERPRETATION            OF STATUTES: External               aids-
    Comparison with Rent Acts of other States~Not commended.

          On an application filed by the respondent-landlord in March
                                                                                /
    1973 for eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground that for a
b   continuous period of more than four months the appellant had ceased to
    occupy the shop during 1969-71, the Rent Controller passed a decree·
    for eviction under Section 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction
    Act, 1949. The appellate authority affirmed the decree. The High Court
    rejected the tenant's appeal.   ·

E         In the appeal before this Court, the appellant-tenant contended
    that though the shop had remained closed for a temporary period, it
    was in his effective control and that since the non-occupation did not~
    continue when the eviction petition was filed, the ground mentioned in
    Section 13(2)(v) had not been made out.                               \

F         On behalf of respondent-landlord, it was contended that sim·; in,a
    number of Rent Acts, the ground specifically required such non-
    occupation for a period immediately preceding the date on which the
    ejectment application was filed, the Act which did not use identical
    language, should be interpreted differently.

~         Allowing the appeal, this Court,

        HELD: 1.1 If a tenant stops the business which he is carrying on
  in a shop and closes the premises continuously for a period of four
  months without a reasonable cause he will be liable for eviction. How-
  ever, the non-occupation of the premises by a tenant must continue till
H the date o~filing of application for his eviction on the ground covered by
  s. 13(2)(v).' [739D]
                                       736
                          B.R. GOPAL v. MATIIRA DASS                      737

           1.2 The reason of inclnding clause (v) in s. 13(2) is to ensure
                                                                                  A
     that buildings, which are scarce in number specially in the towns,
     necessitating rent control legislation, do not remain unused at the
     instance of tenants who do not actually need them. A tenant who is in
     possession of a building in the legal sense only cannot be said to be in
     occupation thereof for the purpose ofs. 13(2)(v); otherwise a question of
     his eviction as envisaged in that section would not arise. The section, by   B
     making provisions for his ejectment, assumes that he is in possession,
     but, still includes cessation of occupation as one of the grounds. The
     clause, therefore, has to be interpreted in this background and it must
     take colour from the context. [739B-C)

           However, the use of present perfect tense in the words 'has ceased
     to occupy' contemplates a period even connecting in some way with the
                                                                                  c
     present time. [74IA)

          Goppulal v. Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji & Anr., [1969)
     l SCC 792, relied on.
                                                                                  D
           V. Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, [1980) I SCR 334 and
     Gajanan Dattatraya v. Sheroani Hosang Patel & Ors., [1976) l SCR
     535, referred to.

           I. 3 Though a comparison of the language of the Act with that of
     other Rent Acts specifically indicating that the period of non-occupation    E
     should be one immediately preceding the suit supports the view that the
     period of non-occupation need not subsist at the date of the suit, that
     alone does not outweigh the other relevant circumstances. If, on the
     other hand, provisions of several other Acts are examined it would be
     seen that the Section has been framed in such a way which avoids use of
'r   present perfect tense. Besides, comparing statutes of different States is    F
I
     not to be commended because similarity or variation in the laws of
     different States is not necessarily indicating of a kindered or different
     intention. [741B-D)

          Nathia Agarwalla and Another v. Musst. Jahanara Begum and
     Others, [1966] 3 SCR 926, followed.                                          G

          In the circumstances, the decision of the courts below that the
     tenant is liable to be ejected is set aside. [741G)

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 823
     ~ml.                                                                         H
    738                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1990] I S.C.R.

          From the Jud8Jlle_nt and Order dated 16.10.1979 of the Punjab
A
    & 1;-Iaryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 2300 of 1979.                   --1
                                                                                       '
         V.C. Mahajan (NP), Ms. Urmila Kapoor, Ms. S. Janani and
    Ms. Meenakashi for the Appellant.

B         M.L. Verma and P.C. Kapur for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        SHARMA, J. This appeal by a tenant-defendant is directed
  against the decree for his eviction from a shop on the ground
  mentioned in s. 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
c Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which renders the tenant
  liable for eviction if_he_has ceased to occupy_the rented premises for a             i
                                                                                   )
  continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. The ques-
  tions which are involved in this case are whether a tenant can be said to
  have ceased to occupy a building merely for the .reason that he
D temporarily suspends the actual physical user thereof; and whether a
  landlord is entitled to a decree even if the tenant has re-occupied the
  premises before the eviction proceeding was commenced.
                                                                                   '
          2. The landlord-respondent filed the present application for
    eviction ofihe appellant before the Rent Controller in March, 1973and
E   inter alia pleaded that for a continuous period of more than four
    months the appellant had ceased to occupy the shop during 1969 to
                                                                                   •
    1971 and he was, therefore. liable to be ejected. The appellant dis-
    puted the allegation, but, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate
    Authority rejected the defence and accepted the plaintiff's plea. After
    unsuccessfully moving the High Court under s. 15(5) of the Act, the            ..,
F   tenant had filed the present appeal by special leave.

          3. The grounds on which a tenant can be asked to quit are
    mentioned under s. 13(2) of the Act, and. unde! clause (v) thereof the
    Controller may pass an order for the tenant's eviction if he is satisfied,

G               "13(2)(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,"

    Mrs. Urmila Kapoor appearing in support of the appeal contended
H   that the appellant has all along been in possession of the shop which .
                      B.R. GOPAL v. MATHRA DASS [SHARMA, J.]                   739

    ~   was never vacated and merely for the reason that the shop remained
                                                                                      A
        closed for a temporary period he cannot be said to have ceased to
'       occupy the same. The argument is that the appellant's occupation of
    )   the shop was never interrupted as it was in his effective control,
    '   although closed and secured under the appellant's lock which nobody
\       ever disturbed. We do not find ourselves in a position to accept the
        interpretation of the section as attempted on behalf of the appellant.        B

'       The reasod of including the clause (v) in s. 13(2) is to ensure that
        buildings, which are scarce in number specially in the towns, neces-
        sitating rent control legislation, do not remain unused at the instance
        of tenants who do not actually need them. A tenant who is in posses-
        sion of a bl,/ilding in the legal sense only cannot be said to be in
        occupation thereof for·the purpose of s. 13(2)(v); otherwise a question
        of his eviction as envisaged in that section would not arise. The sec-        c
...I.   tion, by making provisions for his ejectment, assumes that he is in
        possession, bµt, still includes cessation of occupation as one of the
        grounds. The clause, therefore, has to be interpreted in this back-
        ground and it ;must take colour from the context. We, therefore, hold
        that if a tenant stops the business which he is carrying on in a shop and     D
        closes the premises continuously for a period of four months without a
        reasonable cause he will be liable for eviction.


~             4. The other point urged by Mrs. Kapoor needs more serious
        consideration. The non-occupation of the premises by the tenant did
        not continue after 1971, and the eviction petition was filed in 1973. Is it   E
        permissible to hold, in this situation, that the ground mentioned in
        s. 13(2)(v) has been made out? OIJ behalf of the respondent it has been
        contended that since in a number of Rent Acts of other States a similar
        ground specifically requires such non-occupation for a period imme-
y       diately preceding the date on which the ejectment application is filed,
    I   the present Act which does not use identical language should• be              F
        interpreted differently. Reliance has also been placed on the observa-
        tions of this Court in Gajanan Dattatraya v. Sherbanu Hosang Patel &
        Ors., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 535; a case arising under the Bombay Rents,
        Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

              5. The prayer for eviction, in the above case, was founded on a         G
..._
        plea of subletting, and the ground in this regard, as mentioned in
        s. 13(1)(e), is "that the tenant has, since the coming into operation of
        the Act, unlawfully sublet" the premises. The Court rejected a similar
        contention of the tenant, as in the present case, by holding that,

                    "To acce~e to_ the contention of .the appellant would mean        H
     740                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1990] 1 S.C.R.

                that a tenant would not be within the mischief of unlawful
A
                subletting if after the landlord gives a notice terminating
                the tenancy on the ground or unlawful subletting the sub-
                tenant vacates. The landlord will not be able to get any
                relief against the tenant in spite of unlawful subletting. In
                that way the tenant can foil the attempt of landlord to          I
                                                                                 I.
II              obtain possession of the premises on the ground of sublet-
                ting every time by getting the sub-tenant to vacate the
                premises."

  The observations, and consequently the decision were based on the
  law requiring service of notice to quit before starting an action for
  ejectment as assumed earlier before the decision of 7 learned Judges in
  V. Dhanpa/ Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 334 holding
  otherwise was given. The provisions of s. 13 had, then, to be construed        )
  in a manner which did not render the same completely ineffective.
  Now, that is not the position. It is true that the Court in the former
  decision also observed that the tenant's liability to eviction arose once
D the fact of unlawful subletting is proved, but, the very next sentence
  further clarifies the position in the following words:

                "At the date of the notice, if it is proved that there was       l
                unlawful subletting, the tenant is liable to be evicted."        j
E It is significant to note that according to the decision the subletting had
     to continue till the date of the notice. If the requirement of notice
                                                                                 J
     disappears the above observation must be read as referring to the
     application for eviction and not the notice.

           6. '.(he observations in an earlier case of this Court in Goppulal    1
Ii' v. Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji & Anr., [1969] 1 S.C.C. 792; may
  be of some heip in the present context. This decision was discussed in
  Gajanan Dattatraya's case (suJJra) and was distin_gnished on the
  ground that the Court there had no occasion to consider the question
  as to whether subletting to be within the mischief of the relevant
  statute is to subsist at the date of the suit. It is true that the Court did
G not have to consider and decide directly the present controversy, but,
  the comment made on the language of the statute concerned is helpful
  to the tenant. The dispute, in that case, depended on the interpreta-
  tion of s. 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and
  Eviction) Act, 1950 which forbids the Court to pass a decree for evic-
  tion unless inter alia "the tenant has assigned, sublet or otherwise
H parted with the possession" of the disputed premises. There the words
  "has sublet" needed construing, ~bile in the case before us they are
                  B.R. GOPAL '· MATHRA DASS [SHARMA, J.l                    741

    "has ceased to occupy". In this background, the Court said that the            A
    use of present perfect tense contemplates a period even connecting in
    some way with the present time.

          7. So far as the language of some rent Acts, specifically indicating
    that the period of non-occupation should be one immediately preced-
    ing the suit, is concerned, the learned counsel is right that a compari-
                                                                                   B
    son of the language of the present Act lends some support to his stand,
    but this alone does not outweigh the other relevant circumstances. On
    the other hand, if the provisions of several other Acts are examined, it
    will be seen that the section has been phrased in a way which avoids
    the use of present perfect tense. As an illustration, the provisions of
    the Bihar Rent Act may be seen, which forbids the eviction of a tenant         c
    "except in execution of a decree passed" for subletting (or for other
    grounds mentioned therein). Besides, as pointed out in Nathia
    Agarwalla and Another v. Musst. Jahanara Begum and Others, [1966] 3
    SCR 926; comparing statutes of ·different States is not to be com-
    mended because similarity or variation in the laws of different States is
    not necessarily indicative of a kindered or a different intention. The         D
    reason for this view was expressed in the following language:

y               "Enactments drafted by.different hands, at different times
                and to satisfy different requirements of a local character,
                seldom afford tangible or sure aid in construction. We
                would, therefore, put aside the Rent Control Acts of               E
                Madras, Bihar, Delhi and other States because in these
                States the problem of accommodation in relation to the
                availability of lands and houses and the prior legislative
                history and experience, cannot be same as in Assam."

          8. On an examination of all the provisions of the Act and on             F
    taking into account the other relevant considerations, we are of the
    view that the non-occupation of the premises by a tenant must con-
    tinue till the date of the filing of the application for his eviction on the
    ground covered bys. J3(2)(v). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and
    the decision of the courts below is set aside. The parties shall bear their
    own costs throughout.                                                          G
J
    N.P.V.                                                    Appeal allowed.