2000 (3) TMI 1040 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the applicant Company is a private limited company and whether Ram Avtar is a competent to file the present application for ejectment ? Whether the property in dispute is a rented land and if so its effect ? If issues No.2 is proved in the affirmative whether the applicant company requires the premises in dispute for its bonafide use and occupation ? Whether the suit land is a non-residential building and as such the ground of ejectment for personal use is not available to the applicant ? Whether the personal necessity of the applicant stands satisfied during the pendency of the present petition ? Whether the bar under the proviso is applicable only to the filing of an application or is it a bar on the right of the landlord? Held that - Direct the original authority namely the Court of the Rent Controller Jagadhari to allow the parties to adduce evidence if necessary to the limited extent of deciding the above issue framed by us. The Rent Controller Jagadhari shall decide the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeals are accordingly allowed duly modifying the orders under appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency to file the eviction petition.
2. Classification of the disputed property as rented land or building.
3. Requirement of the premises for the landlord's bona fide use and occupation.
4. Applicability of the ground of personal use for non-residential buildings.
5. Satisfaction of the landlord's personal necessity during the pendency of the petition.
6. Compliance with Rule 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules.
7. Jurisdiction of the High Court in revisional proceedings.
8. Applicability of the proviso to Section 13(3)(i)(b) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency to File the Eviction Petition:
The trial court considered whether the applicant company was a private limited company and if Ram Avtar was competent to file the eviction petition. This issue was resolved in favor of the landlord, affirming the competency to file the petition.

2. Classification of the Disputed Property:
The appellant-tenant contended that the scheduled premises were a building, not rented land as defined under the Act. The trial court, however, accepted the landlord's classification of the property as rented land, which was crucial for the application of Section 13 of the Act.

3. Requirement for Bona Fide Use and Occupation:
The landlord claimed the need for the premises for personal use, asserting no other rented land was occupied for business purposes in the urban area of Yamuna Nagar. The trial court found the landlord's claim genuine, ordering eviction. However, the Appellate Authority, upon remand, ruled in favor of the tenant, questioning the bona fide nature of the landlord's requirement. The High Court later overturned this, supporting the landlord's claim.

4. Applicability of Personal Use for Non-Residential Buildings:
The tenant argued that the scheduled premises were non-residential, thus the ground of personal use was not applicable. The trial court and subsequent judgments did not find merit in this argument, focusing instead on the bona fide requirement for business expansion.

5. Satisfaction of Personal Necessity During Pendency:
An additional issue was whether the landlord's necessity was satisfied during the pendency of the petition. The Appellate Authority found in favor of the tenant, but the High Court reversed this, emphasizing the ongoing need for the premises.

6. Compliance with Rule 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules:
The tenant argued that the landlord's eviction petition lacked material particulars as required by Rule 4. The court acknowledged that while the original petition lacked details, the rejoinder provided sufficient particulars, and Rule 4 was deemed directory, not mandatory, referencing M/s. Rubber House vs. M/s. Excelsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1989 2 SCC 413).

7. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Revisional Proceedings:
The tenant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with factual findings of the Appellate Authority. The court held that under Section 15(6) of the Act, the High Court's revisional powers were broader than those under Section 115 of the CPC, allowing it to correct any illegality or impropriety, including factual findings.

8. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 13(3)(i)(b):
The tenant argued that the proviso barred the landlord from seeking eviction as it had obtained possession of other rented lands. The court examined whether the proviso applied only at the filing stage or extended to the actual eviction stage. It concluded that the proviso restricted the right to seek eviction up to the stage of actual eviction, not just at the filing stage. The court rejected the landlord's reliance on earlier High Court judgments, emphasizing the proviso's intent to prevent unreasonable multiple evictions.

The court remanded the case to the Rent Controller, Jagadhari, to determine if the landlord had obtained possession of similar premises, impacting the right to evict under the proviso. The Rent Controller was directed to decide this within three months, allowing parties to present evidence on this specific issue.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed with modifications, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of whether the landlord's possession of other premises barred the eviction under the proviso to Section 13(3)(i)(b). The case was remanded for further proceedings to resolve this specific issue.