Holding

A retired ex‑serviceman who was not a landlord of the premises at the time of his retirement does not satisfy Section 2(hh) and is therefore incompetent to file an eviction petition under Section 13‑A.

Summary

The landlord, a retired government servant, filed an eviction petition under Section 13‑A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, claiming the premises for his own residence. The tenant argued that the landlord was not a "specified landlord" within the meaning of Section 2(hh) because he had let out the house only after his retirement in 1968, whereas he retired in 1965. The Rent Controller and the Punjab‑Haryana High Court allowed the eviction, holding the landlord qualified. The Supreme Court examined the statutory definition and held that to invoke Section 13‑A the ex‑serviceman must be a landlord of the premises at the time of his retirement, which the respondent was not. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the lower courts' orders were set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a retired government servant who became a landlord after retirement qualifies as a "specified landlord" under Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985.
Whether such a landlord can maintain an eviction petition under Section 13‑A of the Act.

Legislation cited

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985s. 13A, s. 18A, s. 2(hh)

Subjects

specified landlordevictionsummary procedurerent restriction actretirementlandlord‑tenantSection 13-ASection 2(hh)ex‑servicemanpossession

Judgment

DR. D.N. MALHOTRA
A
v.
KARTAR -SINGH

JANUARY 29, 1988

[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.J B

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985:
Sections 2(hh), 13A and 18A-'Spedfied landlord'-Who is-When
entitled to recover possession from tenant-Landlord letting out
premises after his retirement-Whether entitled to maintain eviction
petition under Section 13A.
c
The respondent-landlord filed an application in the Court of the
Rent Controller under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Rent Restric-
tion (Amendment) Act, 1985, seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant
on the ground of arrears of rent~nd for his own use and occupation. It
was contended that the respondent retired from the service of the D
Government oflndia, Ministry of Defence on 20th May, 1949 and that
his service was thereafter transferred to the Ministry of Rehabilitation
from where he was discharged on 30th November, 1965 on the abolition
of the Ministry, and that as he had no other house within the munici-
pality he wanted the house in question for residence. On receiving the
summons of the eviction petition the appellant-tenant sought leave to E
contest the application on the ground that he was inducted as a tenant in
the premises in the year 1968, and that Section 13-A of the Act did not
entitle the landlord to maintain the eviction petition.

The Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties
negatived the contention of the tenant, allowed the application, and F
directed the tenant to vacate the premises within one month from the
date of the order.

The appellant preferred a rev1s1on application under Section
18-A of the Act, but the High Court holding that the respondent being a
'specified landlord' at the relevant time i.e. within one year of the date G
of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amend-
ment) Act, 1985 was entitled to get an order of eviction of the tenant
from his house, upheld the eviction order of the Rent Controller and
dismissed the revision petition.

The tenant appealed to this Court. by special leave. H
833
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

Allowing the appeal,
A
HELD: l. The respondent-landlord did not satisfy the basic re·
quirement of section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
1
(Amendment) Act, 1985 and so be was not competent to maintain the
application under section 13-A of the said Act. [842C]
B
2. Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction y-
(Amendment) Act, 1985 in clear terms enjoins that: "Where a
specified landlord at any time within one year prior to or within one 1-
year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within
one year of the date of commencement of the said Act makes au
application to recover the possession of the building or scheduled
c building, the Controller will direct the tenant to deliver possession of
the said house to him". Therefore to be entitled to have the benefit of
Section 13-A of the Act the landlord-respondent will have to fulfil the
first qualification i.e. he must be a specified landlord in respect of the
house in question on the date of his retirement from the service of the
D Union i.e. in 1963. [840F·H]

3. To get the benefit of the summary procedure provided in
Section 13-A the ex"°"'ervicemen must be a specified landlord at the
time of his retirement from service of the Union as provided in Sec·
tion 2(hh). [842B]
E
4. The respondent-landlord in the instant case, retired from the
service of the Union in 1965, and the house in question was let out to the
appellant-tenant in 1968. The respondent was thus not a landlord qua
the premises and the tenant, on the date of his discharge from service r
entitling him to avail of the benefit of the provisions of Section 13-A of A
F the East Punjab Act. l842C·Dl ,

5. The Rent Controller has not at all considered the question
whether the landlord is a specified landlord, but simply held that the
landlord was discharged from service on the abolition of the Depart·
ment of Rel-abilitation and so be was covered under the definition of
G specified landlord as given under section 2(hh) of the Act. The Single
Judge of the High Court without considering the provisions of Section
2(hh) of the Act held that the application under Section 13-A by a J-
specified landlord seeking ejectment of a tenant was competent within
one year of the commencement of the amended Act even if there existed
no relationship of the landlord and tenant on the date of the retirement
H of the specified landlord. This view is on the face of it erroneous. The
D.N. MALHOTRA v. KARTAR SINGH [RAY, J.] 835

judgments and orders of the Courts below are set aside. [84IF-H; 842A-B, DJ
A
Sohan Singh v. Dhan Raj Sharma, [1983] 2 R.L.R. 465 and
Bhanu Aththayya v. Comdr. Kaushal & Ors., [1979] 2 R.C.J. 338,
approved.

Mrs. Winifred Ross and Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and Ors., B
A.I.R. 1984 SC 458, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2206
of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.1987 of the High Court C
of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revisions No. 2371of1986.

A.S. Sohal, R.K. Talwar and P.N. Puri for the Appellant.

S.M. Sarin and R.C. Misra for the Respondent.
-~
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAY, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment
and order passed in Civil Revision No. 2371 of 1986 dismissing the
revision petition and upholding the order of eviction of the tenant-
~-
appellant from the house in question. E

The landlord, Kartar Singh filed an application in the court of
Rent Controller, Kapurthala under Section 13-A of the East Punjab
Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, stating inter alia that
'· ~ Dr. D.N. Malhotra is a tenant in respect of his house No. 694-A within
· Kapurthala Municipality; that he was in arrears of rent since 22nd F
If December, 1984; that the landlord retired from the service of Govern-
ment of India, Ministry of Defence on 20th May, 1949 'and his service
was thereafter transferred to the Ministry of Rehabilitation from
where he was discharged on 30th November, 1965 on the abolition of
the Ministry; that he had no other house within the Municipality and
---'\
that he wanted the house in question to reside and prayed for eject- G
ment of the tenant-appellant.
J
The tenant-appellant on receiving the summons filed an affidavit
seeking leave of the Court to contest the application stating inter alia
that he was inducted as a tenant in the premises in question in the year
1968; that the petitioner had been letting out the premises in question H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988) 2 S.C.R.

A at different intervals to other tenants; that the present application filed
by the petitioner-landlord is mala fide and the defendant is entitled to
the leave to contest the application on the ground that Section 13-A of
the said Act does not entitle the petitioner to maintain the present
petition. The Rent Controller granted leave to the tenant to contest
the petition on the following ground:
B
Whether the petitioner is a specified landlord as defined in
Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
(Amendment) Act, 1985.

The petitioner-landlord examined himself and he also filed a
C certificate issued to him by Regional Settlement Commissioner who
was his appointing authority. This certificate was marked as Exhibit
A-1 in the case. The tenant-respondent examined himself and stated .,
that the petitioner could not get the benefit of Section 13-A of the said
Act as he was not the landlord of the said house either before or on the
D date of his retirement from service or the Union i.e. in 1965, the house
being let out to him in 1968. The Rent Controller negatived the con-
tentions of the tenant-respondent and allowed the application direct-
ing the tenant-respondent to vacate the premises within one month
from the date of the order.

E The tenant-appellant preferred an application being Civil Revi-
sion No. 2371of1986 under Section 18A of the said Act. The revision
case was dismissed by the High Court of Pun jab and Haryana holding
inter alia that the respondent being a specified landlord at the relevant
time i.e. within one year of the date of commencement of the East
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (to be
F hereinafter referred to in short as the said Act) was entitled to get an~
order of eviction of the tenant from his house. The order of the Rent
Controller was upheld. It was further held that the decisions cited at
the bar in support of the contention that the respondent was not the
landlord qua the tenant-appellant on or before his retirement from
service, were not applicable to this case as the provisions of the Acts
G dealt with in those decisions were different from provisions of Section
13-A of the said Act.

It is against this judgment and order the instant appeal on special
leave has been filed.

H It is convenient to quote the relevant provisions of the said Act
D.N. MALHOTRA v. KARTAR SINGH [RAY, J.] 837
' ---t before proceeding to determine the questions in controversy between
A
the parties.
)
Sec. 2(hh): 'Specified landlord means a person who is entitled to
receive rent in respect of a building on his own account
and who is holding or has held an appointment in a
public service or post in connection with the affairs of B
( the Union or of a State.
_J
Sec. 13-A Where a specified landlord at any time, within one year
prior to or within one year after the date of his retire-
ment or after his retirement but within one year of the
date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, whichever is later,
c
applies to the Controller along with a certificate from the
authority competent to remove him from service indicat-
ing the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the
effect that he does not own and possess any other suit-
able accommodation in the local area in which he intends D
to reside to recover possession of his residential building
or scheduled building as the case may be, for his own
occupation there shall accrue, on and from the date of
such application to such specified landlord, notwith-
standing anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in
any other law for the time being in force or in any con- E
tract (whether expressed or implied) custom or usage to
the contrary, a right to recover immediately the posses-
sion of such residential building or scheduled building or
any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or
parts .... "
V ~Sec. 18-A "(I) Every application under Section 13--A shall be
F

dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in
this section.

G

(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order
for the recovery of possession of any residential building
or scheduled building made by the Controller in accord-
ance with the procedure specified in this Section. H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988) 2 S.C.R.

Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of
A
satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller
under this Section is according to law, call for the re-
cords of the case and pass such order in respect thereto
as it thinks fit."

B In Sohan Singh v. Dhan Raj Sharma, 11983) 2 R.L.R. 465, the
question was whether the ex-servicemen landlord, Sohan Singh fell
within the category of landlord as envisaged in Section 13(3A) of
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 in order to
have an order of eviction of the tenant in a summary way. Landlord,
Sohan Singh retired from Air Force on 3rd March, 1976 and on 17th 'l-
November, 1978 he purchased the shop bearing No. 2454 in Block 1
C No. II, Patel Road, Ambala. On 2nd February, 1979 an application
was made by him for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the said
shop on the ground that he required the same for his personal use of
setting up his own business therein, under Section 13(3A) of the Act.
Section 13(3A) provides that "in the case of a non-residential build-
D ing, a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the armed force
of the Union of India" may apply within a period of three years from
the date of his retirement or discharge from service for an order direct-
ing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. It was held that the
expression landlord would mean a landlord who was a landlord as such
qua the tenant and the premises on the date of his retirement. Sohan
E Singh who pruchased the disputed shop after his retirement was not
landlord of the shop on the date of his retirement. The application for
ejectment of tenant was, therefore, dismissed. '
In Bhanu Aththayya v. Comdr. Kaushal & Ors., [1979) 2 R.C.J.
338, respondent No. 1 who was in Navy retired from service i!IJi
F February, 1968. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are husband and wit\'9
owned the flat in question in a building of the Shankar Mahal co-·
operative Housing Society Ltd. Bombay. On 17th July, 1972 respon-
dent No. 2, wife of respondent No. 1 both on her behalf as well as on
behalf of her husband gave the flat on leave and licence basis to the
petitioner. On 19th November, 1975, the respondent No. 1 secured a
G certificate from Vice-Admiral Flag Officer, Commanding-in-Chief,
Western Naval Command, under the provisions of Section 13-AI. On
24th November, 1975, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 served a notice on the
petitioner to quit and vacate. As the petitioner did not vacate, the
respondent No. 1 made an application under Section 13-AI of Bombay
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, (57 of 1947) as
H amended for an order of his ejectment and for giving him possession of
D.N. MALHOTRA v. KARTAR SINGH [RAY, J.) 839

the said flat. The application was ultimately dismissed by the High A
Court of Bombay on the ground that petitioner was not a landlord qua
the tenant and the premises at the time of his retirement from Navy
and as such he could not get an order of eviction of the petitioner-
tenant from the suit premises under Section 13-Al.

The question whether a retired army officer who acquired a B
] building after his retirement can be deemed to be a landlord within the

- meaning Section 13-Al of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House
Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) came up for consideration before this
Court in the case of Mrs. Winifred Ross and Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca
and Ors., A.I.R. 1984 SC 458 In this case one Lt. Col. T.E. Ross who
was a member of the Indian Army retired· from Military service in C
1967. The property of which the suit building forms a part originally
belongs to his mother-in-law, Mrs. Arcene Parera. She gifted the said
property in favour of her daughter Mrs. Winifred Ross, the wife of the
plaintiff, on November 9, 1976. The property consisted of some out-
houses and the defendant is a tenant in one of those out-houses for a
~~ number of years. The said premises consisted of two rooms and a D
verandah. On June 6, 1977, Mrs. Winifred Ross made a gift of the
portion occupied by the defendant as a tenant in favour of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff thereafter, made an application for eviction of the de-
fendant and for possession of the said premises under section 13-Al of
~ the said Act, which was introduced by an amendment made in 1975. It
was held by this Court that the plaintiff could not avail of the provi- E
- sions of Section 13-Al to recover from the tenant possession of the
building which he acquired after his retirement. The word landlord
~ '1, used in Section 13-Al refers to an officer of the armed forces of the
. Union, who was a landlord either before or on the date of his retire-
~ment from the defence service of the Union. It has been further held
•·( that Section 13-Al can not be liberally interpretted to cover all retired F
members of the armed forces irrespective of the fact whether they were
landlords while they were in service or not. Such a liberal interpreta-
tion of Section 13-Al is likely to expose it to a successful challenge on
the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution.

In the instant case Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent G
Restriction (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 1985 which was publisqe,d in
the Pubjab Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 16th November, 1985 con-
ferred right on the specified landlord to make application at any time
within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retire-
ment or after his retirement but within one year of the date of comm-
encement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) H

I
A
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

Act, 1985, whichever is later, to the Controller along with a Certificate
~
j
..
'

from the Authority competent to remove him from service for direct-
ing the tenant to give him possession of the premises. This Section thus
confers right on the ex-serviceman who is a speicified landlord under
Section 2(hh) of the said Act to apply after retirement within one year
of the commencement of the said Act under Section 13-A of the said
B Act for eviction of the tenant. The respondent-landlord who retired
from the service of the Union is the owner of the house and he is the
landlord at the relevant time i.e. after his retirement within one year of
the date of commencement of the said Act i.e. 16th November, 1985
qua the tenant and the premises and the application to the Rent Con-
troller was made for an order directing the tenant-appellant to give
c possession of the suit house to him to reside therein as he had no other
house within the Municipality. The respondent in order to come within
the definition of specified landlord has to satisfy two things:

(a) he shall be a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect
of the house in question from the tenant-appellant at his own
D account, and

(b) he is holding or has held an appointment in a public service
or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of State.

The petitioner retired from the post of S.D.O. which post he held in
E the Rehabilitation Department, Government of India. The petitioner
as appears from the statements made in the affidavit of the appellant
and also from the certificate Exhibit-IA filed by the landlord that he
retired from service in 1963 and the appellant has been inducted as a
tenant in respect of the said house in 1968. This clearly evinces that the
-
respondent was not a specified landlord within the meaning of Sectiol).--i
F 2(hh) of the said Act as the appellant was inducted as a tenant after his
retirement from the service of the Union. Section 13-A of East Punjab
Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 in clear terms
en joins that "Where a specified landlord at any time, within one year
prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his
retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the
G said Act makes an application to recover possession of the building or
scheduled building, the Controller will direct the tenant to deliver
possession of the house to him". Therefore to be entitled to have the
benefit of Section 13-A of the Act the landlord-respondent will have
to fulfit the first qualification i.e. he must be a specified landlord in
respect of the house in question on the date of his retirement from the
H service of the Union i.e. in 1963. The landlord, as it appears, has not
D.N. MALHOTRA v. KARTAR SINGH (RAY, J.J 841

fulfilled this requirement in as much as after his retirement from A
service of the Union he has let out the. premises to the tenant-appel-
lant. It has been urged before us on behalf of the respondent that at
the relevant time i.e. after retirement of the respondent from service
within one year of the date of commencement of the said Act he is the
landlord of the appellant and as such he falls within the definition of
Section 2(hh) of the said Act and he becomes a specified landlord. This B
-'I submission, in our view, cannot be sustained in as much as the words
"specified landlord" as used in section 2(hh) refer to the person in
... -j service of the Union who is a landlord at the time of his retirement
from the public service or post in connection with the affairs of the
.;,/ Union or of State. It cannot in any manner include an ex-serviceman
who was not a specified landlord qua the tenant and the premises on or
\
before the date of his retirement from the service of the Union. This
c
'
~ has been very succinctly held by this Court in the case of Mrs. Winifred
Ross and Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and Ors. (supra) which has been
referred to hereinbefore.

On a conspectus of the decisions referred to hereinbefore more D
particularly the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Mrs.
Winifred Ross & Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and Ors. (supra) it is well
settled that in order to get the benefit of eviction of the tenant in a
summary way the ex-serviceman must be a landlord qua the premises
as well as the tenant at the time of his retirement from service. The
ex-serviceman is not competent to make an application to the Rent E
Controller to get possession of his house by evicting the tenant in a
summary way unless and until he satisfies the test that he is a landlord
qua the premises and the tenant at the time of his retirement or dis-
charge from service.

In the instant case the Rent Controller has not at all considered F
this question but he simply held that the petitioner was discharged
from service on the abolition of the Department of Rehabilitation and
so he was covered under the definition of specified landlord as given
under section 2(hh) of the Act. The learned Single Judge of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court though noticed the decision in the case of
I "' Bhanu Aththayya v. Comdr. Kaushal and Ors. and also in Sohan Singh G
v. Dhan Raj but without properly considering the provisions of !\ection
2(hh) of the Act held that the application under section 13-A of the
Act by a specified landlord seeking ejectment of a tenant was compe-
tent within one year of the commencement of the amended Act even if
there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant on the date of
retirement of the specified landlord. The learned Single Judge also H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A observed that as there was no provision for a specified landlord after
his retirement to make an application for ejectment of his tenant
within one year after commencement of the amended Act as occurs in f,
the Punjab Act the ratio of the decision in those cases cited before the
Court would not apply. This view of the learned Single Judge in our
B considered opinion is on the face of it erroneous. We have stated
hereinbefore that to get the benefit of the summary procedure pro-
vided in Section 13-A of the said Act, the ex-serviceman must be a
specified landlord at the time of his retirement from service of the
Union as provided in Section 2(hh) of the said Act. The respondent
did not satisfy this basic requirement of Section 2(hh) of the Act and so
he was not competent to maintain an application under Section 13-A
C of the said Act. It is obvious that the respondent-landlord retired from
the service of the Union in 1965 and the house in question was let out
to the tenant-appellant in 1968. The respondent was not a landlord
qua the premises and the tenant on the date of his discharge from
service entitling him to avail of the benefit of the provisions of Section
13-A of the Punjab Act.
D
For the reasons aforesaid we allow the appeal and set aside the
judgment and orders of the courts below. In the facts and circum-
stances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.
')--

...
. ..
-

-1 '
~·

'£0