East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – s.13-B – Summary jurisdiction – Non-Resident Indian (NRI) who purchased a building to which the Act applies, subsequent to the induction of tenant is entitled to invoke summary jurisdiction under s.13-B – If a NRI becomes the owner of the building to which the Act applies and the tenancy of a person in occupation is attorned in his favour, the premises would become a premises let out by him, as otherwise the jural relationship of landlord and tenant will not come into existence – Once a NRI acquires a premises which is in the occupation of a tenant inducted by his predecessor in title, he becomes the owner – The moment the tenancy is attorned in his favour, then the jural relationship of tenant landlord is created and the premises become one let out by him – It is perhaps with a view to highlight this aspect that the legislature has carefully used the expression “owner” in s.13-B, even while using the expression “landlord” in other places – Rent Control and Eviction.
Rent control legislations: Purpose of enactment – Discussed. Rent Control and Eviction: While the owner of a premises may also be the landlord of the premises, a landlord, within the meaning of the expression under the Rent Control legislations, need not necessarily be the owner of the said premises.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The shortage of housing and the exploitation of tenants by landlords in the urban areas, in the aftermath of the world wars, led to the enactment of rent control legislations in the country. The problems created by the post war conditions differed from State to State and hence, the solution sought to be offered in the form of legislation also differed from State to State. As a matter of fact the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is an offshoot of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941 and the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, both of which are pre-independent and pre-partition legislation. On the contrary, the Delhi Act of 1958 is an offshoot of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The areas to which these acts applied had their own peculiar geographical features and socioeconomic conditions. This is why the language employed in these rent control legislations differ, though they may have a common template. [Para 10][554-C-E]
2. Coming to the distinguishing features between the Delhi Act and the East Punjab Act, it may be seen immediately that the Delhi Act covers four categories of persons, namely,(i) a landlord in occupation of a residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government or any local authority and who is required to vacate such residential accommodation; (ii) a landlord, released or retired from armed forces or a dependent of a member of any armed forces who had been killed in action, including a member of the armed forces who is due to retire within one year; (iii) a landlord who is a retired employee of the Central Government or of the Delhi Administration; and (iv) a widow. But under the Punjab Act, the right to seek immediate possession is conferred in favour of only two categories of persons, namely, (i) a specified landlord, meaning thereby a person 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 a connection with the affairs of the union or of a State; and (ii) an owner who is a non resident Indian and who returns to India. [Para 11] [554-F-H; 555-A]
3. While Section 13-A of the East Punjab Act was inserted by amending Act 2 of 1985, Section 13-B was inserted by Punjab Act 9 of 2001. Delhi Act does not contain any special provision for the benefit of NRI landlords. It is common knowledge that the major chunk of the NRI diaspora is from three states, namely, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. Therefore, the legislature thought fit to exempt buildings owned by NRIs from the rigors of the Rent Restriction Act. Hence, the normal rule of interpretation of a legislation for the welfare of the tenants, will give way while interpreting the provisions as applicable to the exempted categories. [Para 12][555-B-C]
4. While carving out an exception in favour of four categories of persons, under Sections 14-A, 14-B, 14-C and 14-D, the Delhi Act used only the word “landlord”. But the Punjab Act uses the word “specified landlord” under Section 13-A and the word “owner” in Section 13-B. There is a world of difference between the expression “landlord” and the expression “owner”. While the owner of a premises may also be the landlord of the premises, a landlord, within the meaning of the expression under the Rent Control legislations, need not necessarily be the owner of the said premises. Therefore, while interpreting Section 13-B of the Punjab Act, the Court must keep in mind the distinction between those two expressions. [Para 13][555-D-E]
5. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 13-B which curtails the right of the owner to invoke this provision for a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner, makes it clear that the words “let out by him” require a different interpretation. The correct method of interpreting Sub-section (1) of Section 13-B and the proviso thereunder is to hold that irrespective of the person by whom the tenant was inducted, a NRI owner will have to wait for a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner, to be entitled to invoke Section 13-B. There is distinction between (i) inception of tenancy or induction of a person as a tenant; and (ii) letting out a premises on lease. Section 13B(1) does not use the expression “inducted by him or her”. If these words had been used, they would certainly refer to the inception of the tenancy. Section 13(B)(1) uses the expression “let out”. [Paras 14, 15, 16][555-F, H; 556-A, B]
6. Section 106(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 declares that a leasing of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year (in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary). It also says that a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month. Once a NRI acquires a premises which is in the occupation of a tenant inducted by his predecessor in title, he becomes the owner. The moment the tenancy is attorned in his favour, then the jural relationship of tenant landlord is created and the premises become one let out by him. It is perhaps with a view to highlight this aspect that the legislature has carefully used the expression “owner” in Section 13-B, even while using the expression “landlord” in other places. [Para 17][556-C-F] Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta (2005) 2 SCC 271: [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 1141 – held inapplicable.
Smt. Bachan Kaur v. Kabal Singh 2011(1) RCR (Rent) 368; S. Surjit Singh Kalra v Union of India & Anr. (1991) 2 SCC 87 : [ 1991] 1 SCR 364; S. Surjit Singh Kalra and Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814 : [1977] 3 SCR 412; Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta (2000) 9 SCC 249 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.