- (1.) Niranjan Lal and another (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed an application against Jagdish Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) for his eviction from the premises in dispute under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondents are the owners of the house and the petitioner is a tenant under them at a monthly rent of Rs. 24/-. The tenancy started on September 8, 1971, which was for a period of six months. After the expiry of that period, the petitioner remained in possession and became a statutory tenant. The ejectment application was filed on various grounds, but the only ground with which we are concerned is that the landlords required the premises in dispute for their own occupation. This ground was substantiated by the respondents and accordingly, an order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner, by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, acting as Appellate Authority under the Act, affirmed the order of ejectment. Still dissatisfied, the present revision petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner.
(2.) The revision petition came up for hearing before S.P. Goyal, J. and finding that with regard to the interpretation of the words 'Own occupation' there were conflicting judgments of this Court, the learned Judge referred the matter for decision to a larger Bench. That is how we are seized of this case. The relevant provision of the Act, with which we are concerned, read as under :- "13........ (3)(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession :- (i) in the case of a residential building, if - (a) he requires it for his own occupation ; ,........................" The preliminary question that falls for our consideration is as to what meaning should be given to the expression 'his own occupation' occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act or under the Act, before a residential building can be got vacated, the landlord has to satisfy, as one of the conditions, that the building was required by him for 'his own occupation'. As to what meaning should be given to this expression, there is divergence of opinion in this Court. One view taken by S.P. Goyal J. with regard to this expression is that the words 'his own occupation' would mean occupation by the landlord and his dependents. See in this connection the judgments in Shri Rattan Chand Jain v. Shri Charan Singh, 1978 1 RCR(Rent) 265 . The contrary view is exhibited in the judgment of M.R. Sharma, J., in Kishori Lal v. Basant Singh, 1979 81 PunLR 148.
(3.) Mr. Awasthy learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the words 'his own occupation' could not be given a very restricted meaning, nor could they be assigned a very liberal meaning. What was sought to be argued by the learned counsel was that on the reasonable understanding of this expression, the only meaning that could be given to it was that the dependent members of the family, both economically and emotionally, could be treated as part of the family of the landlord and that they could be taken into consideration for determining the question whether the landlord required the premises for his own occupation or not. On the other hand, Mr. Jhanji, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the expression 'his own occupation' had to be given a liberal meaning, that each case had to be judged on its own facts and that if no proof it was found that a person has been living as a member of the family where the expression 'his own occupation' or the word 'family' has come up for interpretation. In some statutes the word 'family' has been used and that is why I intend to refer even to those judgments.;