SURINDER SINGH SIBIA

VIJA Y KUMAR SOOD

OCTOBER 10, 1991

(T.K. THOMMEN AND R.M.SAHAI, JJ.]

Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987:

Section 14(3)- Second Proviso-£.xpression "has 11ot vacated such building without sufficient cause"-Scope of-'-Possession given in conseqztence of reqztisition order cannot be held vacation "not without sufficient cause".

Hirnachal Pradesh Reqztisition and Acqztisition of Immovable Properly Act, 1972:

~ Validity or i11validity of requisition order--Ca11not reflect 011 sufficiency of cause under Rent Co11trol Act-Requisition Proceedings- Non-filing of objection by La11dlord-Effect of

Words and Phrases:

"Vacation"-"Sufficient Cause"-Meaning of.

Section 14(3) ofthe Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act-1987

....,,-- enables a landlord to obtain an order for eviction of the tenant if he requires the building for his own occupation and he has no other building

-i_n the area concerned. This right however stands deferred tinder second . F proviso for a period of five years if the landlord has vacated a building in his use without sufficient cause.

The appellant, an owner of a house, was in occupation of first floor of the house, while the second Ooorwas let out to a Judge. His entire house G was requisitioned for occupation of a Judge. The appellant did not tile any objection under section 3(2) of the Requisition Act. However, after vacating the building he applied for eviction of respondent. The Courts below rejected his application by applying the second proviso to section 14(3) of the Himachal Rent Control Act. 467 H

A Allowing the Landlord's appeal anci setting aside the order or Courts '< below, this Court,

HELD: 1. 'Sufficient cause' is an expression which is round in various statutes. It has been construed liberally In keeping with its ordinary dictionary meaning as adequate or enough. That is any B justifiable reason resulting in vacation has to be understood as sutncient

cause. For instance economic difficulty or financial stringency or family reasons may compel a landlord to let out a building in his occupation. So long it is round to be :enuine and bona fide it would amount to vacating a building for sufficient cause. And the bar of second proviso stands lifted. C In other words if the vacation of the building was not a pretence or pretext the proviso could not frustrate the right or landlord to approach the controller for necessary direction to tenant to hand over possession to him. [ 470 B-C]

1.1 Vacation of a building by landlord in pursuance or an order or D requisition by the competent authority could not be characterised as 'not without sufficient cause'. A landlord has no option. He is required to vacate under constraint or law. Therefore the statutory restriction created by second proviso would not apply'in such a case. [470-D]

2. Validity or invalidity or an order under Requisition Act could not adversely reftect on sufficiency or cause under Rent Control Act. Reason for either arises in different circumstances. Vacating a building, even, under an incorrect order passed by a competent authority under Requisition Act would be for sufficient reason. The Rent Control authorities could not examine_ merit or the order under Requisition Act.

F Therefore it could not be a valid consideration for holding that the building was vacated without sufficient cause. The courts below thus committed an enor of law !n applying second . proviso to reject the application filed on behalf of the appellant. [470-H,.471-A-B]

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2383 of 1988. .

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.1988 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision No. 29 of 1988. ·

H N.S. Hegde and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Appellant.

/..._ --

-- ---',

S.S. SIBIA v. V. K. SOOD (SAHAI, J.) .

Ms. Asha Jain Madan for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the <; ourt was delivered by

RM. SAHAI, J. The short but interesting question of law that arises

for consideration in this appeal, directed against judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, is if possession given to competent authority under B Himachal Pradesh Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1972 (for brevity 'Requisition Act') is vacation of premises without sufficient cause within second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 14 of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 deemed to have come into force with effect from 17th November 1971 (hereinafter referred to as •the Act').

Sub-section (3) of Section 14 is extracted below:

"(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possessiori -

(a) in the case of a residential building, if -

(i) he requires it for his own oupation:

Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:

Provided further that he has not vacated such a building E without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area;"

>.f It enables a landlord to obtain an order for eviction of the tenant if he requires the building for his own occupation and he has no other build- F ing in the area concerned. This right however stands deferred under second proviso for a period of five years if the landlord has vacated a building in his use without suffident cause. The question is how the expressi_on, 'he has not vacated such building without sufficient cause' in the second proviso should be construed. It has two aspects one whether the proviso applies to voluntary vacation only or it extends to vacating under G pressure of legal proceedings such as requisition order by competent

-~ ""( authority. Seoond even assuming that the expression 'vacate such building' is given wide interpretation does giving up possession in consequence of a requisition order amounts to vacation without sufficient cause? Vacate, normally, means to go away, to leave. The setting or context in which the . word has been used does not indicate any different meaning. Nor it is H

A necessary to decide if it applies to voluntary vacation only as it was urged that even assuming that giving up possession in pursuance of requisition order is included in the proviso can it be said to be without sufficient cause.

Sufficient cause is an expression which is found in various statutes. It has been construed liberally in keeping with its ordinary dictionary meaning as adequate or enough. That is any justifiable reason resulting in vacation has B to be understood as ufficient. cause. For instance economic difficulty or financial stringency or family reasons may compel a landlord to let out a building in his occupation. So long it is found to be gen"uine and bona fide it would amount to vacating a building for sufficient cause. And the bar of second proviso stands lifted. In other words if the vacation of the building was not a pretence or pretext the proviso could not frustrate the right of C landlord fo approach the controller for necessary direction totenant to haitd over possession to him. ·

Vacation of a building by landlord in pursuance of an order of requisition by the competent authority could not be characterised as, 'not without sufficient cause'. _A landlord has no option. He is required to va- D cate under constraint of law. Therefore the statutory restriction created by second proviso would not apply in such a case. Does it make any difference in law or the action of the landlord is rendered without sufficient cause as he did not file any objection in requisition proc.eedings either under mistaken advice or ignorance of law? For this it is necessary to narrate facts in brief: The appellant is owner of Kennilworth house/Simla and its annexe.

E He was in occupatioq of first floor of Kennilworth house. Second floor was let out to the District Judge, who, later was elevated to the Bench. For-his occupation the entire house was requisitioned. The appellant did not file any objection. After vacating, the building he applied for eviction of respondent from the annexe. His application was rejected as it would found to be in teeth of the second proviso. It was held that the order of F requisition was passed because the appellant did not show any cause by filing any objection under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Requisition Act even though proviso to the sub-section precluded any property or part from being requisitioned if it was in bonafide use by the owner. The explanation of the appellant that he was advised by his lawyer not to file any objection as the building was required for a High Court judge, was not G accepted.

Validity or invalidity of an order under Requisition Act could not adversely reflect on sufficiency of cause under Rent Control Act. Reason for either arises. in different circumstances. Vacating a building, even, under an incorrect order passed by a competent authority under Requisi-

, i;.._

- -

'S. S.SIBIA v. V. K. SOOD (SAHAI, J.] 471

tion Act would be for sufficient reason. The Rent Control authorities could A not examine merit of the order under Requisition Act. Therefore it could not be _a valid consideration for holding that the building \\'as vacated Without sufficient cause. The courts below thus committed an error of law in applying second proviso to reject the application filed on behalf of the appellant.

Even the finding on requirement of the appellant to occupy the building is not well founded. The inference drawn by the two courts below that the appellant being a rich man would not occupy the annexe or that he would use it occasionally is not well founded. It being undisputed that the appellant has no other building in the urban area and it having been found

that he vacated the other building for sufficient reason there was no fetter C on the right of appellant to seek eviction of the tenant.

In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The orders of all the courts below are set aside. The application of appellant shall stand allowed. He shall approach the Rent Control authorities for appropriate directions. Parties shall bear their own costs.

T.N.A Appeal allowed.