Decided on January 10,1957

HARI RAM Appellant
MANGOO RAM Respondents


- (1.) The only question for my decision in this petition is whether the provisions of section 2 of Punjab Act 29 of 1956 give any protection to a tenant against whom an order of eviction was applied for and passed before this Act came into force.
(2.) The facts briefly are that the landlord of the premises in dispute made an application for the eviction of his tenant on three grounds, of which the only ground relevant for our purposes is that he required the building for reconstruction and he was therefore entitled to apply for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession under the provisions of section 13(3) (iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It was found by the Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Authority that the landlord did in fact require the premises for reconstruction and that he mala fide intended to rebuild them. The point raised before me, however, is that Punjab Act 29 of 1956 amended certain provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949. In place of section 13(3) (iii) the following was substituted : "In the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation".
(3.) It has been alleged that the landlord has not been required to carry out any building work by any Government or local authority, nor has it been found that the premises in dispute are unsafe or unfit for human habitation. It is further alleged that this amendment protects all tenants in possession whether any order of ejectment has been made against them or not. It is contended that this amendment is analogous to the protection given to judgment-debtors under section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.