SWAMI NATHversusNIRMAL SINGH

                       [2010] 10 S.C.R. 1002


A                          SWAMI NATH
                                  v.
                          NIRMAL SINGH
                   (SLP (Civil) No. 8317 of 2006)
                       SEPTEMBER 7, 2010
B
          [ALTAMAS KABIR, A.K. PATNAIK AND ANIL
                      R. DAVE, JJ.]

        Rent Control and Eviction:
c
        East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949:

          s.13-8 rlw. s.18-A - Eviction Petition - By non-resident
    Indian - Allowed by courts below - On appeal, held: Landlord
    entitled to eviction.
D
          s. 13-8 (As amended in the year 2001) - Interpretation
    of - Held: Interpretation of the provision that right of
    immediate possession can be exercised only once, would
    frustrate the object of the amendment to the provision.
E
       The respondent-landlords who were non-resident
  Indians, filed petitions u/s. 13-B of East Punjab Urban
  Rent Restriction Act, 1949. They sought eviction of
  tenants from their respective tenanted premises. The
F Rent Controller allowed all the three eviction petitions.
  The petitioners-tenants moved the High Court in revision
  petition. In all the revision petitions, the common plea was
  that the landlords already being in possession of one
  shop, had no bona fide need for the suit premises. In one
  of the revision petitions the additional plea was that
G under the provisions of Section 13-B, the landlord was
  entitled to exercise his right of option for immediate
  possession only once; and that having obtained vacant
  possession of a shop room in the building in question,

H                               1002
            SWAMI NATH v. NIRMAL SINGH                  1003


such right was exhausted and, therefore, the landlord           A
was no longer entitled further for relief u/s. 13-B. The High
Court dismissed the revision petitions. Therefore, the
instant Special Leave Petitions were filed by the tenants.

    Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court
                                                                B
     HELD: The interpretation sought to be given by the
petitioners to the proviso to Section 13-8(1) of the East
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 that under the
provisions of Section 13-B, the landlord was entitled to
exercise his right of option for immediate possession only      C
once, would lead to an absurd situation which was not
contemplated by the legislature while introducing the
provisions of Section 13-B by way of amendment in 2001.
The very object of the amendment would be frustrated if
the narrow and constricted meaning being canvassed on           D
behalf of the petitioners is to be accepted. [Para 13) [1008-
C-D]

    Ba/dev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini JT 2005 (12) SC
442 - relied on.
                                                                E
                     Case Law Reference:
    JT 2005 (12) SC 442         Relied on.          Para 14
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Civil) No. 8317
of 2006.                                                        F

    From the Judgment & Order dated 28.02.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.
1146 of 2006.
                                                                G
                           WITH

SLP (C) Nos. 11719 & 11720 of 2006.

    Neeraj Jain, Sanjay Singh, Sushat Kumar, Umang
Shankar, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Kavita Wadia, Rajat Sharma,       H
    1004     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A A.P. Mohanty, Dr. Kailash Chand, R.V. Naik, S.K. Tandon,
  Raghavendra Naik, R.K. Gupta, Vinod K. Aggarwal,
  Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for appearing parties.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B       ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Special Leave Petition (Civil)
  No.8317 of 2006 was taken up for hearing along with Special
  Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.11719 of 2006 and 11720 of 2006
  as the issues involved in all the three matters were the same.
  All the three matters relate to interpretation of the provisions of
C Section 13-B read with Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban
  Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as "the 1949
  Act".

        2. The common case in all these three Special Leave
0 Petitions is that the Respondents as Non-Resident Indians filed
  petitions before the concerned Rent Controller under Section
  13-B of the 1949 Act for eviction of the Petitioners from their
  respective tenanted premises and that all the three petitions
  were allowed and eviction ()f the Petitioners was ordered. In
E Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006, the Petitioner
  being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, Phagwara,
  moved the High Court in Civil Revision No.1146 of 2006.

        3. In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11719 of 2006, the
  Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by
F the Rent Controller, Phillaur, moved the High Court in Civil
  Revision No.5979 of 2004 against the said order of the Rent
  Controller. Similarly, the Petitioner in Special Leave Petition
  (Civil) No.11720 of 2006 moved the High Court in Civil Revision
  No.5978 of 2004, since both the two-matters were disposed
G of by a common judgment and order dated 8th May, 2006.

        4. The main challenge of the Petitioners in Civil Revision
  No.5978 of 2004 and 5979 of 2004 before the High Court was
  that the Respondent/landlord was not entitled to seek ejectment
H of the tenants from the property in question as he already had
  SWAMI NATH v. NIRMALSINGH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]             1005


a shop room in his possession measuring 12 feet x 12 feet and        A
was not, therefore, in bona fide need of the said premises. The
said stand of the Petitioners/tenants was rejected both by the
Rent Controller as well as the High Court. Having regard to the
provisions of Section 13-B read with Section 18-A of the 1949
Act, both the forums were of the view that as a Non-Resident         B
Indian, the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of the said
provisions for recovery of possession contained therein.

     5. Similar submissions were advanced by the Petitioner
in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of 2006 before the
High Court. In addition, it was urged that under the provisions      C
of Section 13-B, the landlord was entitled to exercise his right
of option for immediate possession only once and that having
obtained vacant possession of a shop room in the building in
question, such right had been exhausted and the landlord was
no long~r entitled to immediate possession as contemplated           D
in Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. It was sought to be urged that
a shop room in a building would have to be treated as a
separate unit or building for the purposes of Section 13-B of
the above Act as otherwise the very object of Section 13-B
would be frustrated as the landlord would have to approach the       E
Court repeatedly for obtaining possession of different parts of
the building, which was not contemplated in the said Section.

     6. The High Court negated both the submissions and while
upholding the view taken by the Rent Controller with regard to       F
the con a fide need of the landlord of the suit premises, the High
Court also rejected the additional submissions regarding the
interpretation of Section 13-B as sought to be urged on behalf
of the Petitioners herein.

     7. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Neeraj Jain, appearing for       G
the Petitioners in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8317 of
2006, contended that the High Court had failed to appreciate
the scheme and object of the 1949 Act which was meant to be
a beneficial piece of legislation to protect the tenants from
eviction from their tenanted premises from landlords whose           H
    1006    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A needs were not as great as that of the tenants. It was urged
  that Section 13-B had been incorporated in the 1949 Act in
  2001 as an exception to the provisions of the Act to
  accommodate Non-Resident Indians who after their return from
  abroad needed their own premises for the purposes of
B residence or even for starting a new business. Even then the
  right to immediate possession given to landlords under Section
  13-B in the special circumstances was restricted and a choice
  of obtaining immediate possession of the premises was
  restricted to one choice only.
c      8. It was also urged that the provisions of Sub-section (1)
  of Section 13-B would have to be read in a manner so as not
  to defeat the main purpose and object of the Act. It was
  submitted that recourse could, therefore, be had to. the
  provisions of Section 13-B only once which would support the
D theory that each shop room or other premises in the building
  would have to be treated as a separate unit and the landlord
  would be entitled to make a choice as to which of the units he
  wished to take possession of immediately. It was submitted that
  in these cases, since the landlord had already obtained
E possession of a portion of the building, it must be deemed that
  he had exhausted his option as given under Section 13-B and
  in order to evict the other tenants from the premises in question,
  he would have to file regular eviction petitions before the Rent
  Controller concerned, who would have to deal with the same
F in the regular manner without resorting to the emergency
  provisions of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act.

       9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also contended
  that having regard to the definition of "Non-resident Indian" in
G Section 2(dd) of the 1949 Act, such Non-resident Indian would
  mean a person of Indian origin, who is either permanently or
  temporarily settled outside India for taking up employment
  outside India or for carrying on a business or vocation outside
  India or for any other purpose, in such circumstances as would
  indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain
H
                                                                         -
  SWAMI NATH v. NIRMAL SINGH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] 1007


period. It was urged that the emphasis was on the condition          A
that the NRI would be staying outside India and in order to avail
the benefits of Section 13-8, he would have to return to India
permanently.

      10. Mr. Jain submitted that the Respondent had not been        8
able to establish that he was an NRI within the meaning of
Section 2(dd) of the 1949 Act and was not, therefore, entitled
to the benefits of Section 13-B thereof. Mr. Jain reiterated his
stand that having filed an Ejectment Petition in respect of one
of the three shop rooms, the subsequent Ejectment Petitions          C
were not maintainable and no order of ejectment could have
been passed in respect thereof. Learned counsel submitted
that the Rent Controller had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing
the order of ejectment in respect of all the three matters despite
the bar under the proviso to Section 13-8(1) of the aforesaid
Act.                                                                 D

     11. The submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners
were strongly opposed on behalf of the Respondent/landlord.
It was urged that the language of Section 13-8(1) of the 1949
Act was clear and unambiguous and the suggested                      E
interpretation of the proviso thereof would lead to an absurd
situation if the building of the NRI was under the possession of
various tenants and he was entitled to exercise his right of
summary proceedings only in respect of one of the said units.
It was submitted that such an interpretation would be absolutely     F
contrary to the objects sought to be achieved by the introduction
of Section 13-B in the 1949 Act by way of amendment in 2001.

     12. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in
Ba/dev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini [JT 2005 (12) SC 442]
where the same question had come up for consideration and            G
it was observed that on a plain reading of the provisions of
Section 13-B, it would be obvious that once in a life-time
possession is given to an NRI to get one building vacated in a
summary manner. It was also submitted that the ownership of
the Respondent/landlord in respect of only one building had not      H
    1008     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A   been disputed by the Petitioners and the only contention that
    was raised on their behalf was that each separate tenancy in
    a building would amount to a ,separate unit and after exhausting
    the right of summary possession once, it was no longer
    available to the NRI landlord to exercise such an option for the
8   second time to a particular building, which contention had been
    negated by the Courts below.

        13. We have carefully considered the submissions made
  on behalf of the respective parties and we are unable to agree
  with the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners. The
c interpretation sought to be given to the proviso to Section 13-
  8(1) of the 1949 Act would lead to an absurd situation which
  was not contemplated by the legislature while introducing the
  provisions of Section 13-8 by way of amendment in 2001. The
  very object of the amendment would be frustrated if the narrow
D and constricted meaning being canvassed on behalf of the
  petitioners is to be accepted.

        14. The provisions of Section 13-8 of the 1949 Act have
  been correctly interpreted and dealt with in Baldev Singh
E Bajwa's case (supra) and in that view of the matter, the Special
  Leave Petitions must fail and are dismissed. I.A. No.2 of 2006
  filed in SLP(C) No.11719 of 2006 by Gurdeep Ram to be
  impleaded as party in his personal capacity, is also disposed
  of, accordingly.
F        15. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

    K.K.T                                        SLPs dismissed.