Supreme Court allows eviction for non-commercial use by Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan: Umed Singh vs. Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan (2006)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 04/07/2006

Citation: Appeal (civil) 6495 of 2005

Judges: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir

Can a landlord evict a tenant from a residential building to use the premises for a non-commercial purpose, such as running a public library? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Umed Singh vs. Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan. The court considered whether the term “own occupation” in the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973, includes using the premises for activities not related to business or trade. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Dr. AR. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir.

Case Background

Umed Singh was a tenant in a property owned by Sewa Ram, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 100 for residential purposes. Mohan Lal was another tenant in the same building. Sewa Ram executed a Will on March 15, 1984, transferring the property to Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan. Sewa Ram passed away shortly after, on June 5, 1984.

On March 25, 1994, Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan filed an ejectment suit against Umed Singh under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973 (referred to as “the Act”). The grounds for eviction were non-payment of rent from December 1, 1989, to March 31, 1994, and the society’s need for the premises to start a library.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Rent Controller initially decreed the eviction petition filed by Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan against Umed Singh on January 31, 2000, citing bona fide requirement. Umed Singh’s appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on August 24, 2000. Subsequently, Umed Singh filed a Revision Petition before the High Court on November 7, 2000, which was dismissed on November 22, 2000.

Umed Singh then filed a Review Petition on December 21, 2000, relying on a similar case involving another tenant, Mohan Lal, where the High Court had dismissed the society’s eviction petition. The High Court recalled its earlier order dismissing Umed Singh’s Revision Petition and referred the matter to a larger bench to address the interpretation of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.

The key question referred to the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was:

“‘Whether his own occupation’ and the ‘residential purpose’ in relation to a corporate body/juristic person can be read in wider perspective or in stricto senso of the dictionary meaning?”

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 13(3)(a) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973, which deals with the eviction of tenants. Specifically, the court considered clauses (i) and (ii) of this section.

Section 13(3)(a) states:

“13. Eviction of tenants. – (3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession – (a) in the case of a residential building, if,– (i) he requires it for his own occupation, is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1949 Act in the said urban area:”

Clause (i) allows a landlord to seek eviction if the residential building is required for “his own occupation.”

Clause (ii) states:

“(ii) he requires it for use as an office or consulting room by his son who intends to start practice as a lawyer, qualified architect or chartered accountant or as a “registered practitioner” within the meaning of that expression used in the Punjab Medical Registration Act, 1916, the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963, or the Punjab Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, or for the residence of his son who is married:”

This clause extends the grounds for eviction to include the use of the premises as an office or consulting room by the landlord’s son or for his son’s residence.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Umed Singh) Arguments:

• The decision of the Full Bench was erroneous because Section 13(3)(a) of the Act refers to residential buildings, and clause (i) should only be interpreted in respect of such buildings.
• Running a library cannot be considered a residential purpose. The expression “own occupation” should relate to use and occupation for residential purposes only.
• The Full Bench failed to consider that the provisions must be interpreted in the context of residential use, not for any other purpose.

Respondent’s (Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan) Arguments:

• Not all non-residential purposes need to be connected with commercial activity, as provided in clause (ii) of Section 13(3)(a).
• The expression “own occupation” in the case of a residential building can include a form of commercial activity.
• The society intends to use the premises for running a public library without any profit, which falls within the ambit of non-commercial use.

Arguments Summary

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was to determine whether the interpretation of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973, as rendered by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was legally sound. This involved deciding whether the term “own occupation” could include non-commercial uses such as running a public library.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Attar Singh vs. Inder Kumar, (1967) 2 SCR 50 (Supreme Court): This case was distinguished by the Full Bench of the High Court because it was rendered under the East Punjab Urban Restrictions Act, No.III of 1949, which had restraints in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) that restricted the expression “his own occupation.”
• Atul Castings Ltd. vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, 2001 (5) SCC 133 (Supreme Court): This case was referenced to support the idea that a premises leased for residence could still be used for activities such as setting up a study room for office work.
• Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973: These provisions were central to the case, as they define the conditions under which a landlord can evict a tenant from a residential building.

Authority Treatment

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Umed Singh vs. Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the interpretation of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973, and the specific circumstances of the case. The court emphasized that the term “own occupation” in Section 13(3)(a)(i) should be interpreted to include non-commercial uses, especially when the landlord is a juristic person like Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan, which cannot have residential requirements in the conventional sense. The court also considered that the society’s intention to use the premises for a public library without profit aligns with non-commercial use, thereby falling within the ambit of the Act.

The court reasoned that a juristic person like the respondent-society cannot have residential needs in the same way an individual does. Therefore, the nature of its activities determines the use of the premises. Since the society intended to use the premises for a non-commercial purpose (a public library), it falls within the ambit of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.

The court quoted:

“The respondent being a society, cannot have any residential requirement in respect of a premises and its activities will have to determine the nature of its use of a premises.”

“A juristic person cannot have need of residence but may use a premises for non-commercial purposes.”

“Since the society intends to use the premises for itself for a non-commercial purpose, unconnected with any business or trade, it must, in our view, come within the ambit of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act.”

Key Takeaways

• The term “own occupation” in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973, can include non-commercial uses.
• A juristic person, such as a society, can seek eviction of a tenant to use the premises for non-commercial purposes like running a public library.
• The intended use of the premises by the landlord is a critical factor in determining whether the eviction is justified.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the term “own occupation” in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973, should be interpreted to include non-commercial uses, especially when the landlord is a juristic person. This clarifies that landlords who are not individuals can still evict tenants for purposes other than residential use if those purposes are non-commercial.

The interpretation of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act in Mohan Lal’s case was overruled.

Conclusion

In the case of Umed Singh vs. Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan, the Supreme Court held that a landlord, particularly a juristic person like Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan, can evict a tenant from a residential building to use the premises for a non-commercial purpose such as running a public library. The court interpreted Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973, to include non-commercial uses within the scope of “own occupation,” thereby allowing the eviction. The appeals were dismissed, and the society was permitted to proceed with its plans to establish a library in the premises.