1995 JTR(SC) 1269
1996 AIR(SC) 857 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 238 ; 1996 1 CivCC 110 ; 1996 1 CurLJ 179 ; 1996 1 ICC 243 ; 1995 8 JT 458 ; 1996 1 PLR(SC) 227 ; 1995 2 RCR(Rent) 672 ; 1996 1 RRR 69 ; 1995 6 Scale 717 ; 1996 1 SCC 1 ; 1995 Supp6 SCR 178 ; 1996 1 UJ 464 ; 1996 KHC 589 ; 1995 2 KLT(Online) 1073
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh : S.Saghir Ahmad
Harbilas Rai Bansal
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 12/5/95
Advocates Appeared: Dhar Vrinda : Mahajan Ashok K. : Popli N.M. : Rohtagi A.B. : Shukla K.N.
Challenge to the constitutional validity of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956, which removed the landlord's right to evict tenants from non-residential buildings on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.14
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT: S.13(3)(a)
(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956 - Constitutional validity of amendment - Right of landlord to evict tenant from non-residential building on ground of bona fide requirement - Removal of such right by amendment - Challenge to the validity of the amendment. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
A landlord, who is a retired government servant and a registered medical practitioner, seeks to evict a tenant from a non-residential shop to start a professional practice. The right to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for non-residential premises had been removed by a 1956 amendment to the rent restriction act. A writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of this amendment was dismissed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
Not provided in the text.
Issues: Whether the amendment to the rent restriction act, which removed the landlord's right to evict a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own use, is constitutionally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: Not provided in the text.
Result: Not provided in the text.
Facts of the case:
A landlord, who is a retired government servant and a registered medical practitioner, seeks to evict a tenant from a non-residential shop to start a professional practice. The right to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for non-residential premises had been removed by a 1956 amendment to the rent restriction act. A writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of this amendment was dismissed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
Not provided in the text.
Issues: Whether the amendment to the rent restriction act, which removed the landlord's right to evict a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own use, is constitutionally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: Not provided in the text.
Result: Not provided in the text.
A.B.ROHTAGI, ASHOK MAHAJAN, K.N.Shukla, N.M.POPLI, Vrinda Dhar
Judgment
KULDIP SINGH, J.
(1) THE East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act) prior to 1956 - permitted a landlord to evict his tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own use, however, the said right of the landlord was taken away by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Punjab Act 29 of 1956 (the Amendment) which came into force on 24/9/1956. Before us the constitutional validity of the Amendment has been challenged. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Amendment was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High court in limine. This appeal, by way of special leave, is against the order of the High court.
(2) THE non-residential premises in dispute was given on rent by the appellants father to the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent 2. After the death of appellants father in the year 1953 the appellant, who was in government service, became the owner of the shop. The appellant retired from service in 1986. According to the appellant he is a Registered Medical Practitioner under the Homeopathic system of medicine. While he was in service his employer granted him permission in 1976 to practise as Homeopath Physician after office hours. It is the case of the appellant that he intends to start practice as Homeopath Physician and for that purpose he bona fide requires the shop in dispute for his personal use and occupation.
(3) THE relevant provisions of the Act prior to the amendment were as under:
"13. Eviction of Tenants.-
* * *
(3 (a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-