Case: Attar Singh Vs. Inder Kumar

were not there, a landlord can ask for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession in the case of rented land if he required it for his own use. In such circumstances it would have been immaterial what was the use to which the landlord intended to put the rented land after he got possession of it so long as he uses it himself. But as the provision stands, the landlord cannot get possession of rented land merely by laying that he requires it "for his own use" (whatever may be the use to which he may put it after getting possession of it): he has also to show before he can get possession, firstly, that he is not occupying in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business any other such rented land. If (for example) he is in possession of any other rented land in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business he cannot ask for eviction of his tenant from his rented land even though the rented land of which he may be in possession for the purpose of his business may not be his own land and he may only be a tenant of that land. This shows clearly that though the words "for his own use" in sub-cl. (a) are not qualified, the intention of the legislature must have been that if the landlord is in possession of other rented land, whether his own or belonging to somebody else, for his business he cannot evict a tenant from his own rented land. It clearly follows from this that the intention when the words "for his own use" are used in sub-cl. (a) is that the landlord requires the rented land from which he is asking for eviction of the tenant for his own trade or business. Otherwise we cannot understand why, if it is the intention of the legislature that the landlord can ask for eviction of his tenant of rented land for any purpose whatever, he should not get it back if he is in possession of other rented land for his business. This to our mind clearly implies that sub-cl. (a) has to be read in the light of sub-cl. (b), and if that is so, the words "for his own use" must receive a meaning restricted by the implication arising from sub-cl (b).8. Turning now to sub-cl. (c), we find that the landlord has not only to prove before he can get the tenant evicted on the ground that he requires rented land for his own use that he is not in possession of any other rented land for the purpose of his business in that urban area but also to prove that he had not vacated any rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. Thus he has not only to prove that he is not in possession of any other rented land for his business but also to prove that he had not vacated any other rented land which he -used principally for business without sufficient cause. For example, even if the landlord is not in possession of any rented land for his business but had vacated other rented land which means land that he had taken for business without sufficient cause he would still not be entitled to ask for eviction of a tenant from his own rented land. This again shows that if the landlord had been in possession of land for business principally and vacated it without sufficient cause he cannot ask for the eviction of a tenant from his own rented land on the ground that he requires it for his own use.9. It should therefore be clear that "for his own use in sub-cl. (a) means use for the purpose of business principally, for otherwise we cannot understand why, if the landlord had given up some rented land which he had taken for business principally, he should not be entitled to recover his own rented land if he required it (say) as in this case, for constructing a residential building for himself. The very fact that sub-cls. (b) and (c) require that the landlord should not be in possession of any rented land for his own business and should not have given up possession of any other rented land, i. e., land which he was principally using for business, show that he can only take advantage of sub-cl. (a) if he is able to show that he requires the rented land for business. Otherwise the restrictions contained in sub-cl. (b) and sub-cl. (c) would become meaningless, it were held that sub-cl. (a) would be satisfied if the landlord requires the rented land for any purpose as (for example) constructing a residential house for himself. We are of opinion therefore that sub-cls. (a), (b) and (c) in this provision must be read together, and reading them together there can be no doubt that when sub-cl. (a) provides that the landlord requires rented land for his own use, the meaning there is restricted to use principally for business or trade. We have already said that the Act is an ameliorative piece of legislation meant for the protection of tenants, and we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the words "for his own use" in sub-cl. (a) in the circumstances must be limited in the manner indicated above, as that will give full protection to tenants of rented land and save them from eviction unless the landlord requires such land for the same purpose for which it had been let i. e. principally for trade or business. We are therefore of opinion that the view taken in the case of Municipal Committee Abohar is incorrect, and as the respondent landlord required the land in this case not for business or trade principally but only for constructing a house for himself he is not entitled to elect the appellant under S. 13 (3) (a) (ii).

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. We are of opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is correct, and the view taken by the High Court in the case of Municipal Committee Abohar cannot be sustained. It is true that in sub-cl. (a) the words "for his own use" are not qualified and at first sight it may appear that a landlord can ask for eviction from rented land if he requires it for his own use, whatever may be the use to which he may put it after eviction. Now if sub-cls. (b) and (c) were not there this would be the correct interpretation of sub-cl (a). This interpretation has been put by the High Court in Municipal Committee Abohar, but in that case the High Court has not considered the effect of sub-cls. (b) and (c)on the meaning to be given to the words for his own use in sub-cl. (a) and seems to have proceeded as if sub-cls. (b) and (c) were not there at all. We are of opinion that sub-cl. (a) has to be read in this provision along with sub-cls. (b) and (c) and it has to be seen whether the presence of sub-cls. (b) and (c) makes any difference to the meaning of the words "for his own use" in sub-cl. (a), which is otherwise unqualified. Now if sub-cls. (b) and (c) were not there, a landlord can ask for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession in the case of rented land if he required it for his own use. In such circumstances it would have been immaterial what was the use to which the landlord intended to put the rented land after he got possession of it so long as he uses it himself. But as the provision stands, the landlord cannot get possession of rented land merely by laying that he requires it "for his own use" (whatever may be the use to which he may put it after getting possession of it): he has also to show before he can get possession, firstly, that he is not occupying in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business any other such rented land. If (for example) he is in possession of any other rented land in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business he cannot ask for eviction of his tenant from his rented land even though the rented land of which he may be in possession for the purpose of his business may not be his own land and he may only be a tenant of that land. This shows clearly that though the words "for his own use" in sub-cl. (a) are not qualified, the intention of the legislature must have been that if the landlord is in possession of other rented land, whether his own or belonging to somebody else, for his business he cannot evict a tenant from his own rented land. It clearly follows from this that the intention when the words "for his own use" are used in sub-cl. (a) is that the landlord requires the rented land from which he is asking for eviction of the tenant for his own trade or business. Otherwise we cannot understand why, if it is the intention of the legislature that the landlord can ask for eviction of his tenant of rented land for any purpose whatever, he should not get it back if he is in possession of other rented land for his business. This to our mind clearly implies that sub-cl. (a) has to be read in the light of sub-cl. (b), and if that is so, the words "for his own use" must receive a meaning restricted by the implication arising from sub-cl (b).8. Turning now to sub-cl. (c), we find that the landlord has not only to prove before he can get the tenant evicted on the ground that he requires rented land for his own use that he is not in possession of any other rented land for the purpose of his business in that urban area but also to prove that he had not vacated any rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. Thus he has not only to prove that he is not in possession of any other rented land for his business but also to prove that he had not vacated any other rented land which he -used principally for business without sufficient cause. For example, even if the landlord is not in possession of any rented land for his business but had vacated other rented land which means land that he had taken for business without sufficient cause he would still not be entitled to ask for eviction of a tenant from his own rented land. This again shows that if the landlord had been in possession of land for business principally and vacated it without sufficient cause he cannot ask for the eviction of a tenant from his own rented land on the ground that he requires it for his own use.9. It should therefore be clear that "for his own use in sub-cl. (a) means use for the purpose of business principally, for otherwise we cannot understand why, if the landlord had given up some rented land which he had taken for business principally, he should not be entitled to recover his own rented land if he required it (say) as in this case, for constructing a residential building for himself. The very fact that sub-cls. (b) and (c) require that the landlord should not be in possession of any rented land for his own business and should not have given up possession of any other rented land, i. e., land which he was principally using for business, show that he can only take advantage of sub-cl. (a) if he is able to show that he requires the rented land for business. Otherwise the restrictions contained in sub-cl. (b) and sub-cl. (c) would become meaningless, it were held that sub-cl. (a) would be satisfied if the landlord requires the rented land for any purpose as (for example) constructing a residential house for himself. We are of opinion therefore that sub-cls. (a), (b) and (c) in this provision must be read together, and reading them together there can be no doubt that when sub-cl. (a) provides that the landlord requires rented land for his own use, the meaning there is restricted to use principally for business or trade. We have already said that the Act is an ameliorative piece of legislation meant for the protection of tenants, and we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the words "for his own use" in sub-cl. (a) in the circumstances must be limited in the manner indicated above, as that will give full protection to tenants of rented land and save them from eviction unless the landlord requires such land for the same purpose for which it had been let i. e. principally for trade or business. We are therefore of opinion that the view taken in the case of Municipal Committee Abohar is incorrect, and as the respondent landlord required the land in this case not for business or trade principally but only for constructing a house for himself he is not entitled to elect the appellant under S. 13 (3) (a) (ii).