JOGINDER PAL versus NAVAL KISHORE BEHAL

JOGINDER PAL versus NAVAL KISHORE BEHAL

The phrase 'for his own use' in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, must be interpreted widely and liberally to include not only the personal requirement of the landlord but also genuine requirements of his close family members, such as his son, provided such requirement is real and not a mere ruse for eviction.

Parties
Appellant/tenant: Joginder Pal; Respondent/landlord: Naval Kishore Behal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bonafide Requirement, Interpretation of 'own Use' Under Rent Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joginder Pal

Appellant/tenant

Naval Kishore Behal

Respondent/landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court

  1. 1 Does the requirement of the landlord's son constitute 'own use' under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949?

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'for his own use' in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, must be interpreted widely and liberally to include not only the personal requirement of the landlord but also genuine requirements of his close family members, such as his son, provided such requirement is real and not a mere ruse for eviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Tenant allowed four months to vacate premises subject to clearing arrears and filing an undertaking to deliver vacant and peaceful possession after expiry of time.
  • Compliance required within four weeks.