Tenants can’t use Religious Premises Act as shield against eviction under Rent Act: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that tenants of religious and charitable institutions cannot resist eviction petitions under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, by taking shelter under the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997.

Dismissing a revision petition, Justice Vikas Bahl’s Bench made it clear that the 1997 enactment was only an additional remedy for landlords against unauthorised occupants and not a privilege that tenants could claim to avoid eviction under the Rent Act.

“The Act of 1998 is a facilitative enactment for the benefit of the landlord against unauthorized occupants and it is not a piece of legislation granting any privilege to a tenant to plead that the action for ejectment must be made only under the Act of 1998,” Justice Bahl observed.

Going into the technical aspect of the matter, the Bench asserted the benefit which a landlord could claim by approaching the authority under the provisions of the Religious Premises Act was not for the tenant. “If the landlord choses to forfeit his right and takes action for eviction only under the Rent Act treating the tenant as a statutory tenant entitled to be protected, the tenant cannot contend that he is not a tenant but only an unauthorized occupant.”

Justice Bahl’s Bench was dealing with a plea that eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller were barred by Section 12 of the 1997 Act. The tenants’ contention in the matter was that the respondent-landlord, who filed the eviction petition under Rent Restriction Act, was a religious and charitable institution.

“Once it is established that the landlord is a religious and charitable institution, the only remedy

which he respondent has for seeking eviction of the tenants is to file proceedings under the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997,” it was argued.

Rejecting the argument, the Bench held that the bar of jurisdiction operated only in respect of persons in unauthorised occupation, and not in cases where the tenancy was admitted and rent is being paid.

“In the present case… the relationship of landlord and tenant is in continuation and it is the case of the petitioners that they have been paying rent to the landlord. No plea of determination or cancellation of the tenancy has been raised,” Justice Bahl asserted, adding that eviction on the ground of personal necessity “falls within the parameters of the Act of 1949.”

Concluding, the Bench ruled the landlord–tenant relationship was not in dispute. Eviction was sought on a ground available under the Rent Act. The later law could not be used to block such a petition. “Once the relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute and the respondent has sought eviction on one of the grounds available under the Rent Act, then, it cannot even remotely be stated that in view of the subsequent beneficial law in favour of respondent, the eviction petition under the Act of 1949 would not be maintainable.”, the court ruled, while dismissing the petition.