G1JLRAJ SINGH GREWAL versus DR. HARBANS SINGH AND ANR.

G1JLRAJ SINGH GREWAL versus DR. HARBANS SINGH AND ANR.

A 'scheduled building' as defined in Section 2(h) is a kind of 'residential building' as defined in Section 2(g), and the ground of eviction for personal need under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) is available in respect of such buildings. Thus, the order of eviction based on personal need is valid. The omission of the words 'or a scheduled' by the 1956 Amendment was to avoid superfluity, as scheduled building is inherently a residential building under the Act.

Parties
Appellant: Gulraj Singh Grewal; Respondent 1: Dr. Harbans Singh; Respondent 2: Dr. Ravinder Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 January 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Personal Need, Interpretation of Statutes, Residential and Scheduled Buildings, Rent Control
Land Law Tenancy Law Eviction Personal Need Interpretation of Statutes Residential and Scheduled Buildings Rent Control

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gulraj Singh Grewal

Appellant

Dr. Harbans Singh

Respondent 1

Dr. Ravinder Singh

Respondent 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 'scheduled building' is also a 'residential building' for the purposes of eviction on ground of personal need under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1948
  2. 2 Whether the 1956 amendment excluding the word 'scheduled' from Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) affects the availability of the eviction ground for personal need in respect of scheduled buildings
  3. 3 Whether the finding of personal need by lower courts is sustainable and open to challenge

Ratio Decidendi

A 'scheduled building' as defined in Section 2(h) is a kind of 'residential building' as defined in Section 2(g), and the ground of eviction for personal need under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) is available in respect of such buildings. Thus, the order of eviction based on personal need is valid. The omission of the words 'or a scheduled' by the 1956 Amendment was to avoid superfluity, as scheduled building is inherently a residential building under the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of eviction affirmed and sustained on the ground of personal need under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1948.
  • Appellant to pay costs; counsel's fee Rs. 3,000.