{"id":220756,"date":"1993-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993"},"modified":"2016-08-10T18:13:08","modified_gmt":"2016-08-10T12:43:08","slug":"gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993","title":{"rendered":"Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 1574, \t\t 1993 SCR (1) 149<\/div>\n
Author: J S Verma<\/div>\n
Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGULRAJ\tSINGH GREWAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDR. HARBANS SINGH AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/01\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nYOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 AIR 1574\t\t  1993 SCR  (1) 149\n 1993 SCC  (2)\t68\t  JT 1993 (1)\t146\n 1993 SCALE  (1)109\n\n\nACT:\nEast  Punjab  Urban  Rent  Restriction\tAct,   1948--Section\n13(3)(a)(i)(a)\tread  with  Section  2\t(a),  (d),  (g)\t and\n(h)--Eviction\tof   \"scheduled\t  building\"   for   personal\nneed--Held,  all  buildings fall into two  categories,\tnon-\nresidential and residential--'Scheduled building' in Section\n2(h)  is  a  kind of 'residential building'  and  ground  of\neviction  for  personal need  available--Amendment  Acts  of\n1956, 1957, 1966 and 1985--Section 13A.\nEast  Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act\t 1948--Sections\t 13,\n13A   and   2(a),  (d),\t (g)  and   (h)--Interpretation\t  of\nstatutes--Principle of harmonious construction--Omission  of\n\"scheduled building\" by amendment in 1956, and its inclusion\nin   provisions\t inserted  by  the   1985   amendment--Held,\nretention of \"scheduled\" in the provision when\t\"residential\nbuilding\"    includes\t scheduled    building\t  considered\nsuperfluous--Inserted  in  1985\t Amendment  to\tavoid\tcon-\ntroversies.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant took the suit premises situate in Ludhiana  on\na  monthly  rent  of Rs. 800 from  respondent  1.  Both\t the\nrespondents are medical practitioners.\tThe respondent riled\na  petition  for eviction of the appellant tenant  on  three\ngrounds:  their personal need under Section  13(3)(a)(i)(a);\nchange of user under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) and impairment  of\nthe  value and utility of the rented building under  Section\n13(2)  (iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent  Restriction\t Act\n1948.\nThe  Rent Controller dismissed the petition.  The  appellate\nauthority held that the personal need of the respondents and\nthe ground of change of user was proved.  Since the building\nthough\tlet out to the tenant for a residential purpose\t was\nused  partly for his profession and had become a  'scheduled\nbuilding' under Section 2(h), he could not be evicted on the\nground\tof  personal  need.   The  order  of  eviction\twas,\nhowever,  made\ton  the\t ground of change  of  user  of\t the\nbuilding.   Ile High Court on revision affirmed the  finding\nand order of eviction made by the appellate authority.\n150\nIn  the Supreme Court, it was argued for the appellant\tthat\nthere was no change of user to justify the order of eviction\non  that  ground  and that the finding on  the\tquestion  of\npersonal need was erroneous.  Relying on legislative  intent\nevidenced in amendments to the Act, it was further contended\nthat  no  order\t of eviction can be made on  the  ground  of\npersonal need contained in Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) in respect\nof a 'scheduled building' since that ground is available for\neviction only from a residential building.  The omission  of\nthe  words 'or a scheduled' after the word 'residential'  in\nSection\t 13  (3) (a) (i) (a) in 1956 and their\taddition  in\nSection 13A in 1985 were referred to advance the argument\nThe  respondents  submitted  that there\t was  no  ground  to\ninterfere  with\t the  order  of\t eviction;  that  'scheduled\nbuilding'  In  section 2(h) continues to be  a\t'residential\nbuilding' in section 2(g) and that personal need in  section\n13(3) (a) (i) (a) is available as a ground for eviction; and\nthat  the finding of fact relating to personal need  of\t the\nlandlord in not open to challenge.  In the alternative, if a\n\"scheduled  building' is not a \"residential  building\"\tthen\nthe ground of change of user, unilaterally was available.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court\nHELD:\t1.  The\t finding  of  fact  of\tpersonal   need\t  is\nunassailable.\nThat  respondent  2 is carrying on his\tprofession  at\tsome\ndistance  from\tLudhiana is not sufficient to  negative\t the\nlandlords' need. [155B]\nNon-examination\t  of   respondent  2  is   immaterial\twhen\nrespondent 1 has examined himself and proved the need of the\nlandlord; it Is at best a matter relating to appreciation of\nevidence,  on  which ground this finding of fact  cannot  be\nassailed  particularly when it was not seriously  challenged\nin the High Court. (pp.6\/7) [155C]\n2.   All  buildings are divided into two  categories:  \"non-\nresidential\"  and \"residential\".  Building,-* used  for\t the\npurpose of business or trade are \" non-residential\" and\t the\nremaining  buildings are all 'residential'.  This  is  clear\nfrom   the  definitions\t in  section  2(a),  (d)  and\t(g).\n(pp.23\/24) [167D]\n3.'Scheduled building as defined in section 2(h) is merely a\nkind  of 'residential building, as defined in section  2(g),\nits  characteristic  being  its part user  for\ta  scheduled\npurpose. (p.24) [167E]\n151\n4.   'The  Act\tmakes a distinction  between  a\t residential\nbuilding which is being partly used for a scheduled purpose,\ni.e. a scheduled building, for the purpose of  determination\nof fair rent.\nA separate definition of 'scheduled building' in clause\t (h)\nwhile  making it clear therein that it means  a\t residential\nbuilding  used\tpartly\tfor a  specific\t purpose  does\tnot,\ntherefore indicate that a scheduled building ceases to be  a\nresidential  building or is a category of building  separate\nfrom  a residential building for the purpose of eviction  of\ntenants\t in the scheme of section 13 of the Act This is\t the\nonly  manner in which a harmonious construction can be\tmade\nof these provisions. (pp.24\/25) [167H, 168A]\n5.   The  object  of the 1956 amendment was  to\t equate\t the\nPunjab tenants with the Delhi tenants and exclude the ground\nof landlord's personal\t need  for  eviction of\t tenants  of\nnon-residential\t property.   Obviously\tthe  definition\t  of\n'scheduled building' in section 2(h) clearly indicating that\nscheduled building is residential building, the words 'or  a\nScheduled\" after \"residential\" were considered\tsuperfluous.\nThe  use  of  the word \"scheduled\"  after  \"residential'  in\nsection 13A inserted in 1985 may have been used to avoid any\ncontroversy like the present raised on the basis of the 1956\nAmendment. (p.26) [168D-E]\n6.   Section 13A which provides for an expeditious remedy is\nnot  a separate distinct provision but has to be read  along\nwith  section 13 of the principal Act forming a part of\t the\ngeneral\t scheme\t contained  in section 13  for\teviction  of\ntenants on the ground of personal need from buildings  which\nare not non-residential. (p.27) [168H]\n7.   This construction of section 13(3) (a) (i) as it  stood\nafter the 1956 amendment, is the only construction which can\nbe  made  to harmonise with the definitions  in\t section  2.\n(p.27) [169C]\n8.   The  question of change of user is not necessary to  be\nconsidered. However,\t the  general principle is  that  if\nthe express terms of lease restrict the user solely\t for\npurpose of residence, then use of any part thereof for\teven\na  scheduled  purpose  without the written  consent  of\t the\nlandlord  may  amount to use of the building for  a  purpose\nother than that for which it was leased.That, however, is  a\nquestion  of  fact  in each case.  In that  case  while\t the\nground\tof  eviction  in section 13 (3) (a)  (i)  (a)  would\nremain available to the landlord for eviction of the tenant,\nin view of the express\n152\ncovenant  against  user\t of  any  part\tof  the\t residential\nbuilding even for a scheduled purpose, it may make available\nalso  the ground of change of user under section 13(2)\t(ii)\n(b) of the Act. (pp.28\/29) [169G-170A]\nBishamber Dass Kohli (dead) by L.rs. v. Smt.  Satya  Bhalla,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5086 of 1985.
\nFrom  the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.1985 of\t the  Punjab
\nand Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 1847 of 1984.
\nA.B.  Rohtagi,\tR.C. Mishra and Dr. Meera Aggarwal  for\t the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
M.S. Gujaral and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by’
\nVERMA, J. The appellant, Gulraj Singh Grewal, took the\tsuit
\npremises situate in Ludhiana on monthly rent of Rs. 800 from
\nrespondent  No.\t 1,  Dr.  Harbans  Singh,  in  March   1980.
\nRespondent  No. 2, Dr. Ravinder Singh, is son of  respondent
\nNo. 1, Dr. Harbans Singh.  Both the respondents are  medical
\npractitioners.\t  The  respondents  filed  a  petition\t for
\neviction  of the appellant-tenant on three grounds,  namely,
\npersonal need of the respondents under Section 13(3) (a) (i)\n<\/p>\n
(a),  change  of  user\tunder section  13(2)  (ii)  (b)\t and
\nimpairment of value and utility of the rented building under
\nsection\t  13(2)\t (iii)\tof  the\t East  Punjab\tUrban\tRent
\nRestriction Act, 1948.\tThe appellant contested the petition
\ndenying the existence of any of these grounds for eviction.
\nThe Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that none
\nof  the\t three grounds had been proved.\t On  appeal  by\t the
\nrespondents, the appellate authority held that the  personal
\nneed  of  respondent No. 2, Dr. Ravinder Singh, one  of\t the
\nlandlords,  was proved and the ground of change of  user  of
\nthe  rented building by the appellant had also been  proved.
\nThe third ground relating to impairment of value and utility
\nof   the  rented  building  was\t rejected.   The   appellate
\nauthority further held that the building though let out\t for
\nresidential purpose was used by the appellant, a  consultant
\nengineer,  partly for his profession on account of which  it
\nhad become
\n153<\/span>
\na ‘scheduled building’ as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act
\nand,  therefore, the ground for eviction based\ton  personal
\nneed  was  not\tavailable for evicting\tthe  tenant  from  a
\n‘scheduled building.  However, an order of eviction was made
\non the ground of change of user of the rented building.\t The
\nappellant then preferred a revision to the High Court  which
\nhas  been dismissed the findings and order of eviction\tmade
\nby  the appellate authority.  Hence, this appeal by  special
\nleave.\n<\/p>\n
The  submissions of Shri Avadh Behari, learned\tcounsel\t for
\nthe  appellant\tare several.  The first contention  is\tthat
\nthere  was  no\tchange of user by  the\tappellant-tenant  to
\njustify\t the order of eviction on that ground.\t The  second
\nsubmission  is that the finding on the question of  personal
\nneed  of the landlord is erroneous.  The last submission  is
\nthat  no  order\t of eviction can be made on  the  ground  of
\npersonal need contained in section 13(3) (a) (i)   (a)\t  in
\nrespect\t of  a\t‘scheduled building’ since  that  ground  is
\navailable for  eviction\t only from a ‘residential  building’
\nas defined in section 2(g) of the  Act,\t    a\t  ‘scheduled
\nbuilding’  defined  in\tsection\t 2(h) of  the  Act  being  a
\ndifferent  kind\t of building.  In reply, Shri  M.S.  Gujral,
\nlearned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order
\nof eviction is justified and there is no ground to interfere
\nin  this  appeal.   His\t submission  is\t that  a  ‘scheduled
\nbuilding’  defined  in\tsection\t 2(h)  continues  to  be   a
\n‘residential  building’ as defined in section 2(g), so\tthat
\nthe ground for eviction based on personal need contained  in
\nsection 13(3) (a) (i) (a) is available in the present  case.
\nHe  also  submitted  that the finding of  fact\trelating  to
\npersonal need of the landlord is not open to challenge.\t His
\nsubmission  in the alternative is that in case a  ‘scheduled
\nbuilding’ is not ‘residential building’, then the ground  of
\nchange\tof user is available since the building was let\t out
\nfor  residential  purpose  and its  user  has  been  changed
\nunilaterally  by  the  tenant without  the  consent  of\t the
\nlandlord.\n<\/p>\n
The  first  question for our decision  is:  whether  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the appellant is right in\t contending  that  a
\n‘scheduled building’ is not a “residential building’ for the
\npurpose of the ground of eviction contained in section 13(3)\n<\/p>\n
(a)  (i)  (a)  ? In case it is held  that  this\t ground\t for
\neviction of the tenant is available in the present case\t and
\nthe finding of fact on the question of personal need of\t the
\nlandlord is not open to challenge, the order of eviction can
\nbe  sustained on this ground alone and it is unnecessary  to
\ndecide the question relating to the ground of change of user
\ncontained  in section 13(2) (ii) (b) of the Act.  We  would,
\ntherefore, consider
\n154<\/span>
\nthis question first.\n<\/p>\n
Admittedly,  the appellant is a consultant engineer and\t the
\nsuit  premises, a ‘building as defined in section ‘-‘(a)  of
\nthe Act, was let out to him solely for residential  purpose.
\nHe  has been using it as his residence while a part  thereof
\nis  used  by  him as his  professional\toffice\twithout\t the
\nconsent\t of  the landlord.  It is on the basis of use  of  a
\npart  of  the  building\t as  appellant’s  office  that\t the
\nappellant claims it to be a ‘scheduled building’ as  defined
\nin  section  2(h) of the Act.  Apart from  the\tquestion  of
\nchange of user which is a separate ground for eviction,\t the
\nquestion  is  whether the suit premises being treated  as  a
\n‘scheduled  building, the ground for eviction  contained  in
\nsection\t 13(3)\t(a) (i) (a) is not  available,\tthat  ground
\nbeing available only in respect of a ‘residential  building’
\nas defined in section 2(g) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is\tthat
\nthe word ‘scheduled’ which occurred along with ‘residential’
\nin  section 13(3) (a) (i) of the Act having been omitted  by
\nthe amendment made in the principal Act in 1956, the obvious
\nlegislative intent is to exclude a ‘scheduled building’ from
\nthe scope of that provision with the result that the grounds
\nfor  eviction contained in section 13(3) (a) (i),  of  which
\npersonal need of the landlord is one, are not available\t for
\neviction  of a tenant from ,scheduled  building’  thereunder
\nafter  that amendment.\tTo buttress this  argument,  learned
\ncounsel\t referred  to  section 4 of the\t principal  Act\t and
\nSection 13A, inserted therein by an amendment made in  1985,
\nwherein\t the  expression ‘scheduled building’  is  expressly
\nused  in addition to the expression  ‘residential  building’
\nand  the  separate  definition of  ‘scheduled  building’  in
\nsection\t 2(h)  while  defining\t‘residential  building’\t  in
\nsection\t 2(g) in the principal Act from the very  inception.
\nThe question is whether this contention can be accepted.
\nBefore\tdealing\t with  the  above  question,  it  would\t  be
\nappropriate to dispose of the challenge made to the  finding
\nof fact of landlord’s personal need, on which this  question
\narises.\t  The finding on this question of fact\trecorded  by
\nthe appellate authority has been affirmed by the High Court.
\nCan this finding be reopended now?\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that\t the
\npersonal need found proved is only of respondent No. 2,\t son
\nof respondent No. 1, who did not enter the witness box\tand,
\nas stated in an affidavit filed in this
\n155<\/span>
\nCourt,\teven  he is carrying on his profession\tat  a  place
\nabout  25  kms, away from Ludhiana.  In\t our  opinion,\tthis
\nfinding of fact is unassailable.  The High Court has clearly
\nobserved  that no meaningful argument could be\tadvanced  on
\nbehalf\tof  the appellant to challenge this finding  of\t the
\nappellate authority.  Respondent No. 1 who is the father  of
\nrespondent  No.\t 2,  has supported and proved  the  need  of
\nrespondent No. 2, who also is a landlord.  The fact that for
\nwant  of  suitable accommodation in the\t city  of  Ludhiana,
\nrespondent No. 2 is at present carrying on his profession at
\nsome  distance from Ludhiana is not sufficient\tto  negative
\nthe  landlord’s\t need.\t In these  circumstances,  the\tnon-
\nexamination of respondent No. 2 also, when respondent No.  1
\nhas examined himself and proved the need of the landlord, is
\nimmaterial   and,  at  best,  a\t matter\t relating  only\t  to
\nappreciation  of evidence, on which ground this\t finding  of
\nfact  cannot be reopened.  This is more so when\t no  serious
\nchallenge  to this finding was made in the High\t Court.\t  We
\nmust, therefore, proceed on the basis that the personal need
\nof the landlord is proved to make out the ground of eviction
\ncontained in section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act in case\tthat
\nground\tof  eviction  is applicable  to\t the  suit  premises
\ntreating it as a ‘scheduled building.
\nIn  order  to  fully appreciate\t the  arguments\t of  learned
\ncounsel for the appellant, the legislative history would  be
\nuseful.\t  The  Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,  1941\t was
\nenacted\t to  restrict  the  increase  of  rents\t on  certain
\npremises  situated within the limits of urban areas  in\t the
\nPunjab.\t  That Act was primarily to control the increase  of
\nrents and did not relate to eviction of tenants.  Then\tcame
\nthe  Punjab  Urban  Rent Restriction  Act,  1947  which\t was
\nenacted to restrict the increase of rent of certain premises
\nsituated  within the limits of urban areas and the  eviction
\nof  tenants therefrom.\tProvision was made in Section  4  of
\nthe  Act for determination of fair rent, for  which  purpose
\n‘non-residential   building’,  ‘residential  building’\t and
\n‘scheduled   building’\twere  treated  as  three   different
\ncategories  prescribing different formula for each of  these
\nthree  categories.  For this reason, separate definition  of
\neach  of  them\twas  given  in\tsection\t 2  containing\t the
\ndefinitions.   However,\t for  the purpose  of  eviction,  in
\nsection\t 13  (3), a ‘residential building  or  a  ‘scheduled
\nbuilding’  were\t clubbed together and treated  similarly  by
\nproviding  the\tsame  grounds for  eviction  while  a  ‘non.
\nresidential building’ or ‘rented land’ were clubbed together
\nand provided for separately.  The scheme of the Act  clearly
\nshows  that  a\t‘residential  building’\t and  a\t  ‘scheduled
\nbuilding’ were treated as different categories only for\t the
\ndetermination  of  fair rent but were  treated\talike  while
\nprescrib-\n<\/p>\n
156<\/span><\/p>\n
ing  the  grounds for eviction of a tenant  therefrom.\t The
\ndefinition  of ‘scheduled building’ in section 2(h) of\tthat
\nAct  also took care to provide that a  ‘scheduled  building’
\nmeans a residential building which was being used partly for
\na  specified purpose.  In this manner, the definition  of  a
\n‘scheduled building’ given in the Act was in consonance with
\nthe  scheme  of\t the  Act treating  it\tdifferently  from  a
\n‘residential  building’ for the purpose of determination  of
\nfair  rent and similarly for eviction of the  tenant.\tThen
\ncame the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1948  which
\nrepealed the 1947 Act and replaced it.\tThe same scheme\t was
\nretained in the 1949 Act which is the principal Act for\t our
\npurpose.   It  is the relevant provisions of  this  Act,  as
\namended\t from time to time, which are material for  deciding
\nthe point raised by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The  East  Punjab  Urban Rent Restriction  Act,\t 1948  (East
\nPunjab\tAct  No. 111 of 1948) was amended by  the  Amendment
\nActs of 1956, 1957, 1966 and 1985 whereby section 13 of\t the
\nprincipal  Act was amended and in 1985 the new\tsection\t 13A
\nwas  inserted.\tIt is the amendments made in section  13  at
\nthe  principal Act providing for eviction of  tenants  which
\nare  material for our purpose.\tThe material  provisions  of
\nthe  Act, including the amendments made in section  13\tfrom
\ntime to time are mentioned hereafter.
\nIn  the\t principal Act as originally enacted,  the  material
\nprovisions are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      ‘2.   Definitions.  In this Act, unless  there
\n\t\t\t    is\t anything  repugnant  in  the  subject\t o
\nr
\n\t      context,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   ‘building’ means any building or part of
\n\t      a\t building let for any purpose whether  being
\n\t      actually\t used  for  that  purpose  or\tnot,
\n\t      including\t any  land,  godowns  out-houses  or
\n\t      furniture let therewith, but does not  include
\n\t      a room in a hotel, hostel or boarding house;\n<\/p>\n
\t      xxx\t xxx\t\t\t  xxx\n\t      (d)   'non-residential   building\t  means\t   a\n<\/pre>\n
\t      building being used solely for the purpose  of
\n\t      business or trade;\n<\/p>\n
\t      xxx\t\t\t\t\t xxx\n\t      xxx\n\t      (g)   \"residential    building\"\tmeans\t any\n\t      building which is not a\n\t      157<\/span>\n\t      non-residential building;\n<\/pre>\n
\t      (h)   “scheduled building means a\t residential
\n\t      building\twhich  is  being used  by  a  person
\n\t      engaged  in  one or more\tof  the\t professions
\n\t      specified in the Schedule to this Act,  partly
\n\t      for his business and partly for his residence;\n<\/p>\n
\t      xxx\t\t\t\t\t xxx\n\t      xxx\n<\/pre>\n
\t      “4.   Determination  of fair  rent.-  (1)\t The
\n\t      Controller shall on application by the  tenant
\n\t      or  landlord of a building or rented land\t fix
\n\t      the fair rent for such building or rented land
\n\t      after  holding such inquiry as the  Controller
\n\t      thinks fit.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   In\tfixing\tthe  fair  rent\t under\tthis
\n\t      section, the Controller may first fix a  basic
\n\t      rent taking into consideration
\n\t      xxx   xxx\t\t\t\t      xxx
\n\t      (3)   In fixing the fair rent of a residential
\n\t      building\tthe  Controller may allow.   If\t the
\n\t      basic rent-\n<\/p>\n
\t      xxx   xxx\t\t\t\t      xxx
\n\t      (4)   In\tfixing the fair rent of a  scheduled
\n\t      building\tthe  Controller may  allow,  if\t the
\n\t      basic rent-\n<\/p>\n
\t      xxx\t\t\t\t\t xxx\n\t      xxx\n\t      (5)   In\tfixing\tthe  fair  rent\t of  a\tnon-\n<\/pre>\n
\t      residential   building  or  rented  land\t the
\n\t      Controller may allow, if the basic rent
\n\t      xxx    xxx\t\t\t       xxx
\n\t      ’11.   Conversion\t of a  residential  building
\n\t      into a nonresidential building No person shall
\n\t      convert  a  residential building into  a\tnon-
\n\t      residential    building\texcept\t with\t the
\n\t      permission in writing of the Controller.”
\n\t      “13.   Eviction of tenants.  (1) A  tenant  in
\n\t      possession of a building or rented land  shall
\n\t      not  be  evicted therefrom in execution  of  a
\n\t      decree passed before or after the commencement
\n\t      158<\/span>
\n\t      of this Act or otherwise and whether before or
\n\t      after  the termination of the tenancy,  except
\n\t      in  accordance  with the\tprovisions  of\tthis
\n\t      section.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant
\n\t      shall apply to the Controller for a  direction
\n\t      in  that\tbehalf.\t If  the  Controller,  after
\n\t      giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity  of
\n\t      showing\tcause  against\tthe  applicant,\t  is
\n\t      satisfied\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)…………..\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)that the tenant has after the commencement
\n\t      of this Act without the written consent of the
\n\t      landlord-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)…………..\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   used  the building or rented land for  a
\n\t      purpose  other  than  that for  which  it\t was
\n\t      leased. or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii)that\t the tenant has committed such\tacts
\n\t      as  are likely to impair materially the  value
\n\t      or utility of the building or rented land, or
\n\t      the Controller may make an order directing the
\n\t      tenant  to put the landlord in  possession  of
\n\t      the  building  or\t rented\t land  and  if\t the
\n\t      Controller  is not so satisfied he shall\tmake
\n\t      an order rejecting the application :\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat  the Controller  may  give\t the
\n\t      tenant  a\t reasonable  time  for\tputting\t the
\n\t      landlord\tin  possession of  the\tbuilding  or
\n\t      rented land and may extend such time so as not
\n\t      to exceed three months in the aggregate.
\n\t      (3)   (a)\t  A  landlord  may  apply   to\t the
\n\t      Controller  for an order directing  tenant  to
\n\t      put the landlord in possession-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   in\tthe  case  of  a  residential  or  a
\n\t      scheduled building if\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   he requires it for his own occupation;\n<\/p>\n
\t      159<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (b)   he is not occupying another\t residential
\n\t      or  a scheduled building, as the case may\t be,
\n\t      in the urban area concerned; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   he\thas  not  vacated  such\t a  building
\n\t      without\t sufficient    cause\tafter\t the
\n\t      commencement  of\tthis Act in the\t said  urban
\n\t      area:\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  in\t the  case  of\t a   non-residential
\n\t      building or rented land, if-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   he requires it for his own use;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   he\tis not occupying in the\t urban\tarea
\n\t      concerned for the
\n\t      purpose\tof  his\t business  any\tother\tsuch
\n\t      building\tor rented land, as the case may\t be,
\n\t      and
\n\t      xxx   xxx\t\t\t\t      xxx
\n\t      “19.    Penalties.    (1)\t  If   any    person
\n\t      contravenes  any\tof the\tprovisions  of\tsub-
\n\t      section  (2) of section 9, sub-section (1)  of
\n\t      section 10, section 11 or section 18, he shall
\n\t      be  punishable with fine which may  extend  to
\n\t      one thousand rupees.’
\n\t      The   East  Punjab  Urban\t  Rent\t Restriction
\n\t      (Amendment)  Act, 1956 (Punjab Act No.  29  of
\n\t      1956)  amended  section 13  in  the  following
\n\t      manner:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      2.    Amendment  of section 13 of East  Punjab
\n\t      Act III of 1949.\tIn clause (a) of sub-section
\n\t      (3)  of  section 13 of the East  Punjab  Urban
\n\t      Rent   Restriction  Act,\t 1949,\t hereinafter
\n\t      referred to as the principal Act\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   (a)\t In sub-clause (i), the words ‘or  a
\n\t      scheduled” shall be omitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   In\tsub-paragraph (b), the words  “or  a
\n\t      scheduled” and the words “as the case may\t be”
\n\t      shall be omitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  (a) In sub-clause (ii) the words ‘a non-
\n\t      residential building or’ shall be omitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   In sub-paragaph (b), the words “building
\n\t      or”  and the words Was the case may be’  shall
\n\t      be omitted”\n<\/p>\n
\t      160<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (c)   In\tsub-paragraph  (c),  the  words\t  ‘a
\n\t      building or” shall be omitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii)For sub-clause (iii), the following shall
\n\t      be substituted, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii)In  the  case of any building  or  rented
\n\t      land,  if\t he  requires it to  carry  out\t any
\n\t      building\twork at the instance of the  Govern-
\n\t      ment  or\tlocal authority or  any\t improvement
\n\t      Trust  under some improvement  of\t development
\n\t      scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for
\n\t      the human habitation.-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iv)  In\tsub-clause (iv), for the words\t‘any
\n\t      building”,  where they first occur, the  words
\n\t      ‘any   residential  building  shall  be\tsub-
\n\t      stituted.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (v)   In the second proviso, for the words  “a
\n\t      residential  a  scheduled\t or  non-residential
\n\t      building\t or  rented  land’,  the  words\t  “a
\n\t      residential building or rented land” shall  be
\n\t      substituted.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section  13  was again amended by\t the  Punjab
\n\t      Urban  Rent Restriction ,Amendment) Act,\t1957
\n\t      (Punjab Act No. 21 of 1957) as under
\n\t      ‘2.   Amendment  of  section 13  of  the\tEast
\n\t      Punjab Act No. 111 of 1949.  After clause\t (c)
\n\t      of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of\tsub-
\n\t      section  (3) of section 13 of the East  Punjab
\n\t      Urban   Rent   Restriction  Act,\t 1949,\t the
\n\t      following shall be added, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(d)  it\twas let to the tenant for use  as  a
\n\t      residence\t by  reason  of\t his  being  in\t the
\n\t      service or employment of the landlord, and the
\n\t      tenant has ceased, whether before or after the
\n\t      commencement  of\tthis  Act,  to\tbe  in\tsuch
\n\t      service or employment:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat where the tenant is  a  workman
\n\t      who  has been discharged or dismissed  by\t the
\n\t      landlord\tfrom  his service or  employment  in
\n\t      contravention   of  the  provisions   of\t the
\n\t      Industrial Disputes Ad, 1947, he shall not  be
\n\t      liable  to  be  evicted  until  the  competent
\n\t      authority under that Act confirms the order of
\n\t      discharge\t  or   made  against  him   by\t the
\n\t      landlord.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      161<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Thereafter,   the\t East  Punjab\tUrban\tRent
\n\t      Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1966 (Punjab\t Act
\n\t      No.  6 of 1966) further amended section 13  of
\n\t      the principal Act as under
\n\t      “2.   Amendment of section 13 of punjab Act  3
\n\t      of  1949.\t  In section 13 of the\tEast  Punjab
\n\t      Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   in sub-section (3),\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   after      sub-paragraph\t (i)\t  of
\n\t      paragraph.(a),  the  following   sub-paragraph
\n\t      shall be inserted, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(i-a) In the case of a residential  building,
\n\t      if  the  landlord\t is a member  of  the  armed
\n\t      forces  of the Union of India and requires  it
\n\t      for  the\toccupation of his family and  if  he
\n\t      produces\ta  certificate\tof  the\t  prescribed
\n\t      authority,  referred  to in section 7  of\t the
\n\t      Indian  Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925,\tthat
\n\t      he is serving under special conditions  within
\n\t      the meaning of section 3 of that Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Explanation.   For the purposes of  this\tsub-
\n\t      paragraph
\n\t      (1)   the\t  certificate  of   the\t  prescribed
\n\t      authority\t shall be conclusive  evidence\tthat
\n\t      the   landlord   is  serving   under   special
\n\t      conditions; and
\n\t      (2)   “family’  means  such relations  of\t the
\n\t      landlord\tas ordinarily five with him and\t are
\n\t      dependent upon him;”;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   in\tthe first proviso in paragraph\t(a),
\n\t      for  the\twords “shall not  be  entitled,\t the
\n\t      words  ‘shall not, except under  sub-paragraph
\n\t      (i-a), be entitled’ shall be substituted; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   after  paragraph (b), the following\t new
\n\t      paragraph shall be added, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      ‘(c)  where an application is made under\tsub-
\n\t      paragraph (i-a) of paragraph (a), it shall  be
\n\t      disposed of, as far as may be, within a period
\n\t      of one month and if the claim of the  landlord
\n\t      is  accepted,  the Controller  shall  make  an
\n\t      order
\n\t      162<\/span>
\n\t      directing\t the tenant to put the\tlandlord  in
\n\t      possession  of  the building on a date  to  be
\n\t      specified in the order and such date shall not
\n\t      be  later than fifteen days from the  date  of
\n\t      the order.”; and
\n\t      (2)In sub-section (4), for the words ‘does not
\n\t      himself occupy it or, if possession, the words
\n\t      ‘does not himself occupy it or, if  possession
\n\t      was   obtained  by  him  for  his\t family\t  in
\n\t      pursuance of an order under sub-paragraph\t (i-\n<\/p>\n
\t      a)  of paragraph (a) of sub-section  (3),\t his
\n\t      family   does  not  occupy   the\t residential
\n\t      building,\t  or,\tif  possession”\t  shall\t  be
\n\t      substituted.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Then  the East Punjab Urban  Rent\t Restriction
\n\t      (Amendment)  Act,\t 1985 (Punjab Act No.  2  of
\n\t      1985) further amended section 13 and  inserted
\n\t      new section 13A in the principal Act as under
\n\t      ‘Amendment  of section 13 of Punjab Act  3  of
\n\t      1949. 3. In the principal Act, in section\t 13,
\n\t      after  sub  section (4),\tthe  following\tsub-
\n\t      section shall be inserted, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      ‘(4-A)  Where  a\ttenant\tis  evicted  from  a
\n\t      residential or scheduled building in pursuance
\n\t      of  an order made under section 13-A  and\t the
\n\t      specified landlord or, as the case may be, the
\n\t      widow,  widower, child, grandchild or  widowed
\n\t      daughter-in-law of such specified landlord :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   does  not  occupy it  for  a  continuous
\n\t      period  of three months from the date of\tsuch
\n\t      eviction; or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   within a period of three years from\t the
\n\t      date of such eviction of the tenant, lets\t out
\n\t      the  whole or any part of such building,\tfrom
\n\t      which  the tenant was evicted, to\t any  person
\n\t      other than the tenant;\n<\/p>\n
\t      such   evicted   tenant  may  apply   to\t the
\n\t      Controller,  for an order directing  that\t the
\n\t      possession  of the building shall be  restored
\n\t      to him and the Controller shall make an  order
\n\t      accordingly.’
\n\t      Insertion of new section 13-A in Punjab Act  3
\n\t      of  1949.\t 4.  In\t the  principal\t Act,  after
\n\t      section 13, the following section shall
\n\t      163<\/span>
\n\t      be inserted, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      Right  to\t recover  immediate  possession\t  of
\n\t      residential or scheduled building to accrue to
\n\t      certain  persons.\t “13-A.\t Where\ta  specified
\n\t      landlord at any time, within one year prior to
\n\t      or  within  one  yea after  the  date  of\t his
\n\t      retirement or after his retirement but  within
\n\t      one  year of the date of commencement  of\t the
\n\t      East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment)
\n\t      Act, 1985, whichever is later, applies to\t the
\n\t      Controller  alongwith a certificate  from\t the
\n\t      authority competent to remove him from service
\n\t      indicating the date of his retirement and\t his
\n\t      affidavit\t to the affect that he does not\t own
\n\t      and  possess any other suitable  accommodation
\n\t      in  the  local  area in which  he\t intends  to
\n\t      reside   to   recover   possession   of\t his
\n\t      residential building or scheduled building, as
\n\t      the case may be, for his own occupation, there
\n\t      shall  accrue,  on and from the date  of\tsuch
\n\t      application   to\tsuch   specified   landlord,
\n\t      notwithstanding  anything contained  elsewhere
\n\t      in  this Act or in any other law for the\ttime
\n\t      being  in\t force or in any  contract  (whether
\n\t      expressed or implied), custom or usage to\t the
\n\t      contrary,\t a right to recover immediately\t the
\n\t      on  of such residential building or  scheduled
\n\t      building or any part or parts of such building
\n\t      if it is let out in part or parts :\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\t that  in  case\t of  death  of\t the
\n\t      specified\t landlord, the widow or\t widower  of
\n\t      such  specified  landlord and in the  case  of
\n\t      death  of such widow or widower, a child or  a
\n\t      grandchild  or a widowed\tdaughter-in-law\t who
\n\t      was dependent upon such specified landlord  at
\n\t      the  time\t of his death shall be\tentitled  to
\n\t      make an application under this section to\t the
\n\t      Controller,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)in  the  case of death\t of  such  specified
\n\t      landlord, before the commencement of the\tEast
\n\t      Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act,
\n\t      1985 within one year of such commencement:\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)In  this  case of death of  such  specified
\n\t      landlord, after such commencement, but  before
\n\t      the date of his retirement, within one yew  of
\n\t      the date of his death;\n<\/p>\n
\t      164<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (c)in  the  case of death\t of  such  specified
\n\t      landlord, after such commencement and the date
\n\t      of his retirement, within one year of the date
\n\t      of such retirement;\n<\/p>\n
\t      and on the date of such application the  right
\n\t      to  recover the possession of the\t residential
\n\t      building\tor scheduled building, as  the\tcase
\n\t      may  be,\twhich  belonged\t to  such  specified
\n\t      landlord at the time of his death shall accrue
\n\t      to the applicant:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided further that nothing in this  section
\n\t      shall be so construed a.-, conferring a  right
\n\t      on  any person to recover possession  of\tmore
\n\t      than  one\t residential or\t scheduled  building
\n\t      inclusive\t of any part or parts thereof if  it
\n\t      is let out in part or parts:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided further that the controller may\tgive
\n\t      the tenant a reasonable period for putting the
\n\t      specified landlord or, as the case may be, the
\n\t      widow,  widower, child, grandchild or  widowed
\n\t      daughter-in-law\t in   possession   of\t the
\n\t      residential building or scheduled building, as
\n\t      the  case may be, and may extend such time  so
\n\t      as   not\tto  exceed  three  months   in\t the
\n\t      aggregate.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Explanation.  For the purpose of this  section
\n\t      the expression “retirement” means\t termination
\n\t      of  service of a specified landlord  otherwise
\n\t      than by resignation.”\n<\/p>\n
Further by this Amendment Act of 1985, special procedure for
\ndisposal  of applications under section 13A  was  prescribed
\nand some other ancillary amendments were also made.
\nThe definitions in clauses (a), (d), (g) and (h) of  Section
\n2 and the material part of section 4 quoted above remain the
\nsame  in the principal Act as originally enacted even  after
\nthese  amendments, section 13, in so far as it\tis  material
\nfor  the  present case, as it stands amended  in  the  above
\nmanner now reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “13.   Eviction  of tenants  (1) A  tenant  in
\n\t      possession of a building or rented land  shall
\n\t      not  be  evicted therefrom in execution  of  a
\n\t      decree passed before or after the commencement
\n\t      of this Act or otherwise and whether before or
\n\t      after  the termination of the tenancy,  except
\n\t      in accordance with the
\n\t      165<\/span>
\n\t      provisions of this section, or in pursuance of
\n\t      an  order made under section 13 of the  Punjab
\n\t      Urban   Rent   Restriction   Act,\t  1947,\t  as
\n\t      subsequently amended.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant
\n\t      shall apply to the Controller for a  direction
\n\t      in  that\tbehalf.\t If  the  Controller,  after
\n\t      giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity  of
\n\t      showing\tcause  against\tthe  applicant,\t  is
\n\t      satisfied\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)……………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  that   the\t tenant\t  has\tafter\t the
\n\t      commencement  of this Act without the  written
\n\t      consent of the landlord\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)…………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   used  the building or rented land for  a
\n\t      purpose  other  than  that for  which  it\t was
\n\t      leased, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) that the tenant has committed such\tacts
\n\t      as are likely to
\n\t      impair materially the value or utility of\t the
\n\t      building or rented land, or
\n\t      xxx\t\t\t\t\t XXK
\n\t      xxx
\n\t      (3)   (a)\t  A  landlord  may  apply   to\t the
\n\t      controller  for an order directing the  tenant
\n\t      to put the landlord in possession\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   in the case of a residential building if\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   he requires it for his own occupation;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   he is not occupying an other residential
\n\t      building, in the urban area concerned; and
\n\t      xxx\t\t\t\t\t xxx
\n\t      xxx
\n\t      (i-a)  in the case of a residential  building,
\n\t      if  the  landlord\t is a member  of  the  armed
\n\t      forces  of the Union of India and requires  it
\n\t      for  the\toccupation of his family and  if  he
\n\t      produces\ta  certificate\tof  the\t  prescribed
\n\t      authority,  referred  to in section 7  of\t the
\n\t      Indian  Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925,\tthat
\n\t      he is serving under
\n\t      166<\/span>
\n\t      special  conditions  within  the\tmeaning\t  of
\n\t      section 3 of that Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      XXK      xxx\t\t\t       xxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  in the case of rented land, if\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   he requires it for his own use:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   he\tis not occupying in the\t urban\tarea
\n\t      concerned for the purpose of his business\t any
\n\t      other such rented land; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   he\thas  not vacated  such\trented\tland
\n\t      without\t sufficient    cause\tafter\t the
\n\t      commencement  of this Act, in the\t urban\tarea
\n\t      concerned:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      xxx xxx xxx\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iv)  in the case of any residential building,
\n\t      if  he  requires it for use as an\t office,  or
\n\t      consulting  room\tby his son  who\t intends  to
\n\t      start practice as a lawyer or as a “registered
\n\t      practitioner”  within  the  meaning  of\tthat
\n\t      expression  as  used  in\tthe  Punjab  Medical
\n\t      Registration  Act, 1916, or for the  residence
\n\t      of his son who is married, if\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   his son as aforesaid is not occupying in
\n\t      the  urban area concerned any  other  building
\n\t      for   use\t as  office,  consulting   room\t  or
\n\t      residence, as the case may be; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   his\t son  as aforesaid has\tnot  vacated
\n\t      such a building without sufficient cause after
\n\t      the  commencement\t of this Act, in  the  urban
\n\t      area concerned
\n\t      xxx xxx\t       xxx
\nThe  main argument of learned counsel for the  appellant  is
\nthat  omission of the words “or a scheduled’ after the\tword
\n‘residential’ in section 13(3) (a) (i) by the 1956 Amendment
\nwhile using those words in addition to the word ‘residential
\nin  section 13A, subsequently inserted-in 1985, is  a  clear
\nindication that the ground of eviction contained in  section
\n13(3)  (A) (i) (a) of _personal need of the  landlord.is  no
\nlonger\tavailable  to landlords in general  after  the\t1956
\nAmendment,  awn\t though a more expeditious  remedy  on\tthat
\nground has been provided by 13A from
\n167<\/span>
\n1985  to  the category of specified  landlords\talone.\t The
\nretention of the separate definition of ‘scheduled building’
\nin section 2(h) and use of that expression elsewhere in\t the
\nAct,  including\t section 4 and section 13,  is\treferred  in
\nsupport\t of this submission.  The question is  whether\tthis
\nconstruction is proper.\n<\/p>\n
In  section  2 which contains the  definitions,\t clause\t (a)
\ndefines\t  ‘building’.\t Clause\t (d)  then   defines   ‘non-
\nresidential  building’ to mean a building being used  solely
\nfor  the purpose of business or trade.\tThus, to be  a\tnon-
\nresidential building, it must be used solely for the purpose
\nof  business  or  trade.  Clause  (g)  defines\t‘residential
\nbuilding’  to  mean  any  building  which  is  not  a\tnon-
\nresidential building.  These definitions make it clear\tthat
\nall  buildings\tare  divided into  two\tcategories  :  ‘non-
\nresidential’  and ‘residential’.  Buildings used solely\t for
\nthe  purpose of business or trade are ‘non-residential’\t and
\nthe remaining buildings are all ‘residential’.\tAccordingly,
\nno  building  to  which\t the  Act  applies  is\toutside\t the
\nclassification of ‘non-residential’ and ‘residential’.\tThen
\ncomes clause (h) which defines ‘scheduled building’ to\tmean
\na  residential\tbuilding which is being used  partly  for  a
\nscheduled  purpose.  The definition of ‘scheduled  building’
\nin clause (h) itself makes it clear that it is a residential
\nbuilding  as  defined in clause (g) with  the  qualification
\nthat such a residential building is one which is used partly
\nfor  a\tspecified  purpose.   In  other\t words,\t  ‘scheduled
\nbuilding’  as  defined\tin clause (h) is merely\t a  kind  of
\n‘residential  building’\t as  defined  in  clause  (g),\t its
\ncharacteristic being its part user for a scheduled  purpose.
\nThe  reason  to defined ‘scheduled building’  separately  in
\nclause\t(h) is also evident from some provisions of the\t Act
\nitself.\t  The  Act makes a distinction for  the\t purpose  of
\ndetermination  of fair rent between a  residential  building
\nwhich  is being used partly for a scheduled purpose and\t is,
\ntherefore,  treated  as\t a  ‘scheduled\tbuilding’  and\t the
\nremaining residential buildings which are not so used.\tThis
\nis  clear from the scheme of section 4 itself providing\t for
\ndetermination  of  fair rent.  This is also clear  from\t the
\nfact that from the definition of ‘building’ given in section
\n2(a),  the  only  category excluded  is\t a  ‘non-residential
\nbuilding’  as  defined in section 2(d) for  the\t purpose  of
\nsection\t 2(g) and not also ‘scheduled building’\t defined  in
\nsection 2(h) and in section 2(h), a ‘scheduled building”  is
\ndefined\t to  mean a residential building used partly  for  a
\nscheduled  purpose.   A separate  definition  of  ‘scheduled
\nbuilding’ in clause (h) while making it
\n168<\/span>
\nclear  therein\tthat it means a\t residential  building\tused
\npartly for a specified purpose does not, therefore, indicate
\nthat  a\t scheduled  building  ceases  to  be  a\t residential
\nbuilding  or  is  a category of\t building  separate  from  a
\nresidential building for the purpose of eviction of  tenants
\nin  the scheme of section 13 of the Act.  This is  the\tonly
\nmanner\tin  which a harmonious construction can be  made  of
\nthese provisions.\n<\/p>\n
The  question  now is of the effect of\tthe  1956  Amendment
\nwhich omitted the words ‘or a scheduled’ in section 13(3) as
\nindicated earlier.  The Statement of Objects and Reasons  of
\nthe  Amendment Act of 1956 clearly says that  the  provision
\nallowing  eviction on the ground of personal need  has\tbeen
\nmisused\t by  certain  landlords and  according\tto  the\t Act
\napplicable to Delhi the tenants of industrial and commercial
\npremises  cannot be ejected on the ground of personal  need,
\nwhile  in the Punjab, such tenants can be evicted  therefrom
\nalso  on the ground of personal need.  To avoid hardship  to
\nsuch  tenants, it was considered necessary that the  tenants
\nof  non-residential property in the Punjab should be  placed
\nat  par with tenants of such property in Delhi.\t  Thus,\t the
\nobject\tof this enactment was to equate the  Punjab  tenants
\nwith  Delhi  tenants and exclude the  ground  of  landlord’s
\npersonal  need\tfor eviction of tenants\t of  non-residential
\nproperty.   To achieve this object deletion was made of\t the
\nwords other than ‘residential’ from section 13(3)  providing
\nfor  eviction  of tenants from buildings on  the  ground  of
\nlandlord’s  personal  need.   Obviously,  in  view  of\t the
\ndefinition  of\t‘scheduled building’ in section\t 2(h)  being
\nclear\tto   indicate  that  ‘scheduled\t  building’   is   a
\n‘residential   building,  retention  of\t the  words  ,or   a
\nscheduled’  after ‘residential’ was  considered\t superfluous
\nwhile omitting the words ‘non-residential building’ in other
\nparts  of section 13(3) relating to the ground\tof  personal
\nneed for eviction of the tenants from buildings.
\nSubsequently,\tin  section  13A,  when\t inserted  by\t1985
\nAmendment,   the  word\t‘scheduled’  was  also\tused   after
\n‘residential’,\tmay be, in view of the controversy like\t the
\npresent raised on the basis of the 1956 Amendment, to  avoid
\nany such controversy therein.  That does not, however,\tmean
\nthat  section  13  which must be  construed  in\t the  manner
\nindicated by us should be read differently for that  reason.
\nIn  fact,  insertion of section 13A further  reinforces\t the
\nview  we have taken.  There would be no occasion to  provide
\nan expeditious remedy for eviction of tenants of a  category
\nof
\n169<\/span>
\nlandlords  and\tto  also  provide  for\ta  special   summary
\nprocedure  for\tthem unless the remedy of  eviction  on\t the
\nground\tof personal need was already available generally  to
\nthe landlords in section 13.  It is significant that section
\n13 was also amended by the 1985 Amendment by inserting\tsub-
\nsection\t (4-A) therein as a result of insertion of  the\t new
\nsection 13A in the principal Act.  Thus, the 1985  Amendment
\nitself shows that section 13A is not a separate and distinct
\nprovision  but has to be read along with section 13  of\t the
\nprincipal Act forming a part of the general scheme contained
\nin  section  13\t for eviction of tenants on  the  ground  of
\npersonal need from buildings which are not  non-residential.
\nThe construction we have made of section 13(3)(a)(i), as  it
\nstood  after  the 1956 Amendment, is the  only\tconstruction
\nwhich  can  be\tmade to harmonise with\tthe  definitions  in
\nsection 2 which continue to remain as originally enacted and
\nthe  other provisions of the Act which have  been  referred.
\nThe contention of learned counsel for the appellant on\tthis
\npoint is, therefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
The  result of the above discussion is that  the  respondent
\nlandlord’s  personal need being found proved, the ground  of
\neviction contained in section 13(3) (a) (i) (a) is available
\nand  the order of eviction passed against the appellant\t can
\nbe sustained on this ground alone.  The construction made by
\nthe  High  Court of Section 13(3) (a) (i) that it  does\t not
\napply to a scheduled building is, therefore, erroneous.
\nThe  only  surviving  question is the  availability  of\t the
\nground of change of user contained in section 13(2) (ii) (b)
\non  which the order of eviction has been passed by the\tHigh
\nCourt.\t In view of the above conclusion reached by us\tthat
\nthe  ground  in\t section 13(3)(a)(i)(a)\t is  made  out,\t the
\nconsideration  of this question in the present-case  appears
\nunnecessary.   We have considered and decided that  question
\nin a connected matter  Bishamber Das Kohli (Dead) by Lrs. v.
\nSmt..Satya  Bhalla.   However,<\/a>\ta  brief  reference  to\t the
\ngeneral principle may be apposite.\n<\/p>\n
If  the express terms of lease restrict the user solely\t for
\npurpose of residence, then use of any part thereof for\teven
\na  scheduled  purpose  without the written  consent  of\t the
\nlandlord  may  amount to use of the building for  a  purpose
\nother than that for which it was leased.  That, however,  is
\na  question  of fact in each case.  In that case  while\t the
\nground\tof eviction in section 13(3)(a)(i)(a)  would  remain
\navailable to the landlord
\n170<\/span>
\nfor eviction of the tanant, in view of the express  covenant
\nagainst\t user of any part of the residential  building\teven
\nfor  a\tscheduled purpose.  It may make available  also\t the
\nground of change of user under section 13(2) (ii) (b) of the
\nAct.  In the present case, it is unnecessary to go into this
\nfurther\t question  since  the  order  of  eviction  can\t  be
\nsustained on the ground contained in section  13(3)(a)(i)(a)
\nalone as already indicated.\n<\/p>\n
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs.  Counsel’s
\nfee Rs. 3,000.\n<\/p>\n
U.R.\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n171<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 1574, 1993 SCR (1) 149 Author: J S Verma Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) PETITIONER: GULRAJ SINGH GREWAL Vs. RESPONDENT: DR. HARBANS SINGH AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/01\/1993 BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-220756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-10T12:43:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T12:43:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993\"},\"wordCount\":6003,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993\",\"name\":\"Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T12:43:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-10T12:43:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993","datePublished":"1993-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T12:43:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993"},"wordCount":6003,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993","name":"Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T12:43:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulraj-singh-grewal-vs-dr-harbans-singh-and-anr-on-12-january-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220756","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=220756"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220756\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}