2012 INSC 0254
Ram Prakash
v.
Dev Raj
(Supreme Court Of India)
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
DIPAK MISRA
Civil Appeal No. 7982 Of 2011 | 22-03-2012

1. The appellant herein is the owner and landlord of the property in Ambala
City who had let out a portion of his house to the respondent-tenant at the rate
of Rs. 250/- per month.

2. The appellant-landlord filed an Eviction Petition under Section 13 of the
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the 1973
Act') for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from a portion of House No.
2286B/2, situated at Nahan House Ambala City Haryana on the ground of bona
fide need, non-payment of rent from 1.8.1987 to 30.11.1987 and material
alteration of the demised premises. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction
petition stating that the demised premises is an independent unit constructed for
non-residential purposes.

3. Against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the appellant-landlord
preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court which reversed the finding
of the Rent Controller holding that the disputed premises is part and parcel of
the residential building and as no permission of the Rent Controller was
obtained in this case by the landlord the disputed premises shall be construed to
be a residential building only. It was further held that the appellant-landlord
having a bona fide need, was entitled to evict the respondent-tenant.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Court the respondent-tenant
preferred Civil Revision before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh under Section 15(6) of the 1973 Act. The High Court vide its
judgment and order dated 24th September, 2010 set aside the order of the
Appellate Authority and restored the order of the Rent Controller. The

1  SpotLaw
appellant-landlord has come before this Court in appeal by way of special leave
being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the High Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
documents placed on record and the pleadings of the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-landlord has drawn our attention to Section
11 of the 1973 Act which reads as under:-

"Section 11. Conversion of a residential building into a non-residential building
No person shall convert a residential building into a non-residential building
except with the permission in writing of the Controller."

7. In view of Section 11 of the 1973 Act, the High Court erred in holding that
the disputed premises was non-residential and that a non-residential premises
could be evicted only on that ground. Hence, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained and is, accordingly, set aside and the order of the First Appellate
Court is restored.

8. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate
to grant one year's time to the respondent-tenant i.e., Dev Raj to vacate the
premises subject to his filing usual undertaking in this Registry within four
weeks from today.

9. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

2  SpotLaw