1971 (4) TMI 104 - HC - Indian Laws

Broad interpretation of 'business' under rent law allows eviction for charitable purposes. Society can construct library building.

The court interpreted the term 'business' broadly under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, including charitable activities. Landlords were ... - Issues Involved:1. Definition and scope of the term 'business' under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.2. Whether a landlord can evict a tenant from rented land for constructing a building for their business.3. Bona fide requirement of the Society for the land in dispute.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Definition and Scope of the Term 'Business':The primary issue was whether the term 'business' in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act should be interpreted narrowly to mean commercial business with a profit motive or broadly to include any activity engaging a person's time, talent, and interest, including charitable activities.The court held that the term 'business' should be interpreted in its broader sense. It was noted that the word 'business' has a wider import than 'trade' and includes charitable activities or public interest dealings. The court referred to various legal definitions and precedents, concluding that 'business' encompasses activities beyond mere profit-making ventures. The court emphasized that the nature of the activity defines its character, and profit is not a necessary ingredient of carrying on business.2. Eviction for Constructing a Building:The second issue was whether a landlord could evict a tenant from rented land to construct a building necessary for their business.The court revisited its previous judgment in Dhan Devi's case, which restricted landlords from evicting tenants if they intended to use the land after converting it into a building. The court clarified that the landlord could indeed raise construction on the rented land if it was necessary for carrying on their business. The court observed that the Rent Restriction Act does not prohibit landlords from putting up structures on rented land after obtaining possession for their business purposes.The court emphasized that the landlord's requirement for the land should be bona fide and for their own business, which could include constructing necessary buildings. The court held that the landlord is not bound to use the land in the same condition as the tenant but can develop it to suit their business needs.3. Bona Fide Requirement of the Society:The final issue was whether the Society's requirement for the land to construct a library building was bona fide.The court found that the Society's claim was bona fide. The land was allotted to the Society by the government specifically for constructing a library, and this purpose was consistent with the Society's aims and objectives. The court noted that the Society had provided an undertaking to start construction within a month or two of obtaining possession and had already obtained a sanctioned plan for the library building.The court dismissed the tenant's objections, including the lack of funds and the availability of another plot, as there was no evidence to support these claims. The court concluded that the Society's requirement for the land was genuine and in line with its objectives.Conclusion:The court allowed the petition, set aside the appellate authority's order, and restored the Rent Controller's order. The tenant was directed to vacate the rented land by July 15, 1971, allowing the Society to proceed with constructing the library building. The parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout the proceedings.