Civil Appeal No 2206 of 1987
From the Judgment and order dated 421987 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revisions No 2371 of 1986
AS Sohal RK Talwar and PN Puri for the Appellant
SM Sarin and RC Misra for the Respondent
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
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 DN Malhotra is a tenant in respect of his house No 694 A within Kapurthala Municipality that he was in arrears of rent since 22nd December 1984 that the landlord retired from the service of Government 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 ejectment of the tenant appellant
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 836 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 R the petition on the following ground Whether the petitioner is a specified landlord as defined in Section 2hh of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act 1985
The petitioner landlord examined himself and he also filed a 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 date of his retirement from service or the Union ie in 1965 the house being let out to him in 1968
The Rent Controller negatived the contentions of the tenant respondent and allowed the application directing the tenant respondent to vacate the premises within one month from the date of the order
The tenant appellant preferred an application being Civil Revision No 2371 of 1986 under Section 18A of the said Act
The revision case was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana holding inter alia that the respondent being a specified landlord at the relevant time ie within one year of the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act 1985 to be 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 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
It is convenient to quote the relevant provisions of the said Act 837 before proceeding to determine the questions in controversy between A the parties
Sec2hh 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 the Union or of a State
13 A 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 East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act 1985 whichever is later applies to the Controller along with a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable 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 notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any con tract whether expressed or implied custom or usage to the contrary a right to recover immediately the possession of such residential building or scheduled building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts   Sec18 A 1 Every application under Section 13 A shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section
       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 accordance with the procedure specified in this Section
838 Provided that the High Court may for the purpose of 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
 In Sohan Singh vs Dhan Raj Sharma 1983 2 RLR 465 the question was whether the ex servicemen landlord Sohan Singh fell within the category of landlord as envisaged in Section 133A 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 November 1978 he purchased the shop bearing No 2454 in Block 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 133A of the Act
Section 133A provides that in the case of a non residential building 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 directing 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 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 vs Comdr
Kaushal  Ors  respondent No 1 who was in Navy retired from service in February 1968
Respondent Nos 1 and 2 who are husband and wife owned the flat in question in a building of the Shankar Mahal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd Bombay
On 17th July 1972 respondent 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 certificate from Vice Admiral Flag officer Commanding in Chief Western Naval Command under the provisions of Section 13 Al
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 Al of Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 57 of 1947 as amended for an order of his ejectment and for giving him possession of 839 the said flat
The application was ultimately dismissed by the High 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 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
vs Mrs Ivy Fonseca and ors AIR In this case one Lt Col TE Ross who was a member of the Indian Army retired from Military service in 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 outhouses 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 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 defendant 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 provisions of Section 13 Al to recover from the tenant possession of the building which he acquired after his retirement
The word landlord 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 retirement from the defence service of the Union
It has been further held that Section 13 Al can not be liberally interpreted to cover all retired members of the armed forces irrespective of the fact whether they were landlords while they were in service or not
Such a liberal interpretation 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 Restriction Amendment Act No 2 of 1985 which was published in the Pubjab Gazette Extra ordinary dated 16th November 1985 conferred 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 retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment  whichever is later
to the Controller along with a Certificate from the Authority competent to remove him from service for directing the tenant to give him possession of the premises
This Section thus confers right on the ex serviceman who is a specified landlord under Section 2hh 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 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 ie after his retirement within one year of the date of commencement of the said Act ie 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 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 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 SDO which post he held in 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 lA 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 Section 2hh 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 enjoins 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 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 fulfil the first qualification ie he must be a specified landlord in respect of the house in question on the date of his retirement from the service of the Union ie in 1963
The landlord as it appears has not 841 fulfilled this requirement in as after his retirement from service of the Union he has let out the premises to the tenant appellant
It has been urged before us on behalf of the respondent that at the relevant time ie 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 2hh of the said Act and he becomes a specified landlord
This submission in our view cannot be sustained in as much as the words specified landlord as used in section 2hh refer to the person in 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 has been very succinctly held by this Court in the case of Mrs Winifred Ross and Anr
vs Mrs Ivy Fonseca and Ors
supra which has been referred to hereinbefore
On a conspectus of the decisions referred to hereinbefore more particularly the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Mrs Winifred Ross  Anr
vs 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 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 discharge from service
In the instant case the Rent Controller has not at all considered 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 2hh of the Act
The learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court though noticed the decision in the case of Bhanu Aththayya vs Comdr
Kaushal and ors
and also in Sohan Singh vs Dhan Raj but without properly considering the provisions of Section 2hh of the Act held that the application under section 13 A of the Act by a 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 landlord and tenant on the date of retirement of the specified landlord
The learned Single Judge also 842 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 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 considered opinion is on the face of it erroneous
We have stated hereinbefore that to get the benefit of the summary procedure provided 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 2hh of the said Act
The respondent did not satisfy this basic requirement of Section 2hh of the Act and so he was not competent to maintain an application under Section 13 A 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
For the reasons aforesaid we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and orders of the courts below
In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
 The Nagar Mahapalika Bareilly petitioner imposed octroi duty on goods brought within its limits for consumption use or sale therein  through a Notification dated April 30 1986 in exercise of powers under section 1722b of the UP Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959
In the Schedule forming part of this notification are mentioned the articles on which octroi duty is payable and the rates thereof
The articles have been grouped together in different classes from Class I to Class X Class III which bears the Heading Articles of lighting fuel washing and lubricants contains the entry Item No 7 as 7
Methalated denatured and rectified spirit Rs005 per litre
 Class VI with the heading Tobacco and other intoxicating goods contains the entry at Item No 6 as 6
Foreign imported liquor and all kinds of wines made in India Re1 per litre
 Kasturi Lal Satantra Kumar and his partner respondents 3 and 4 by a bid in the auction held for retail vend of country liquor for the excise year 1987 88 ending on March 31 1988 obtained the necessary licence under the UP Excise Act for a group of shops in the district of Bareilly
One of the conditions of the auction which also formed part of the licence was that the licensee would obtain supply of country liquor for retail vend from the bonded warehouse in respect of Bareilly district
The Nagar Mahapalika sought to realise octroi duty on the 866 country spirit supplied by the bonded warehouse at the rate of Re1 per litre treating it to be liquor fit for human consumption  under Entry 6 of Class VI of the Notification
The respondents filed a writ petition for a direction to restrain the Nagar Mahapalika from collecting octroi at the rate of Re1 per litre contending that country spirit is nothing but rectified spirit and that octroi duty could not be charged in excess of Rs005 per litre under Item No 7 of Class III of the Notification
The High Court allowed the writ petition and restrained the Nagar Mahapalika from requiring payment of octroi duty at Re1 per litre upon the country spirit brought within its limit under Item No 6 of Class VI of the Schedule to the Notification
Dismissing the SLP of the Nagar Mahapalika this Court  HELD 1
The taxable event for the imposition of octroi is the entry and the nature and type of the goods at the point of entry on the relevant factors
870A 2
The normal meaning of the expressions foreign imported liquor or all kinds of wine made in India would not fit in the description of the rectified spirit
Ordinary people would not consider rectified spirit to be foreign imported liquor or all kinds of wines made in India 
That is not the natural meaning as understood by common people
That is the yardstick by which this should be judged
The dictionary meaning also corresponds to the same view
868E F 3
While giving a meaning to an Item contained in the Schedule of articles the Court should normally give it a meaning intended by the framers of the Schedule by looking at the various articles mentioned in a particular group
All the items in one group should be considered in a generic sense
868H 869A In the instant case having regard to the nature of the duty and the type of the goods rectified spirit is dutiable at the rate of Rs005 per litre and not on the basis that it was foreign wine or liquor  870B State of UP and others vs Synthetics and Chemical Ltd etc
   referred to
Heeralal and others vs State AIR  approved