Ganpat Ram Sharma & Ors. VS. Smt. Gayatri Devi

Case Law No.215052, Reporting JudgeMukharji,sabyasachi (J)

Linked as:

Summary

The respondent purchased the suit premises in April, 1973 and in September, 1973 applied to the Competent Author- ity under the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 for permission to evict the appellants who were induct- ed into the premises by the erstwhile landlord. The permis- sion was granted in December, 1974 and three eviction suits were filed in April, 1975 on the grounds contained in Sec- tion 14(1)(a), (h) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

1958 and the Additional Rent Controller held that the ground under Section 14(1)(h) was made out against all the three appellants. The Rent Control Tribunal confirmed the decree.

Before the High Court in revision, it was submitted that when the landlady purchased the property she and her vendor had also been aware that the tenants owned a house and that on account of this knowledge the respondent had waived her rights under clause (h) of Section 14(1) of the Act, that if a tenant built a house or has been allotted a residential accommodation, he must acquire/obtain vacant possession before he was evicted under clause (h), and that the area where the allotted quarter was situated was not governed by the Act 540

and, therefore, the ground covered by clause (h) was not available to the landlady.

The High Court construed Section 14(1)(h) of the Act to mean that a building constructed by the tenant which is outside the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the date of application for ejectment, was yet within Section 14(1)(h), and held that the word 'or' showed the different circumstances in which a tenant was liable to be evicted, that it was not necessary for a landlord to prove either that the tenant had built a house and acquired vacant pos- session of the building or that he had been allotted and taken possession of the allotted premises, and that there was no substance in the argument advanced by the tenants that on account of the knowledge of the landlady that the tenants owned a house, she had waived her rights under clause (h) of Section 14(1) of the Act, and dismissed the Revision Petitions.

In the appeals, it was submitted that there must be a suitable residence, one which is a good and a reasonable substitute for the appellants or the landlord before evic- tion could be ordered under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act.

Dismissing the appeals by special leave, this Court,

HELD: 1. The Rent Control Act is a beneficial legisla- tion to both the landlord and the tenant. It protects the tenant against unreasonable eviction and exorbitant rent. It also ensures certain limited rights to the landlord to recover possession in stated contingencies. [550B-C]

2.1 The words 'has built' or 'has acquired' or 'has been allotted' in clause (h) of Section 14(1) clearly mean that the tenant has already built, acquired or been allotted the residence to which he can move and that on the date of the application for his eviction, his right to reside therein exists. Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the words as they stood associated with each other in clause (h) lead to the only conclusion that as on the date of application the tenant must be possessing a clear right to reside in some other premises than the tenancy premises as a matter of his own rightful choice either because he may have built such premises or acquired vacant possession thereof or the same may have been allotted to him. The words 'built'

and 'allotted' did not mean that after building a residence or after allotment of a residence the tenant must also acquire its possession. [548D-F]

2.2 The landlord, in order to be entitled to evict the tenant, must 541

establish one of the alternative facts positively, either that the tenant has built, or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted a residence. It is essential that the three ingredients must be pleaded by the landlord who seeks eviction but after the landlord has proved or stated that the tenant has built, acquired vacant possession or has been allotted a residence, whether it is suitable or not and whether the same can be really an alternative accommodation for the tenant or not, are within the special knowledge of the tenant and he must prove and establish those facts.

[549F-H]

2.3 The landlord must be quick in taking his action after the accrual of the cause of action, and if by his inaction, the tenant allows the premises to go out of his hands then it is the landlord who is to be blamed and not the tenant. [550A-B]

2.4 The High Court was right in holding that once the condition stipulated in clause (h) was fulfilled by the tenant, he was disentitled to protection. He cannot, there- fore, claim that he should he protected. [547B-C]

3.1 Article 66 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stipulated that for possession of immovable property the cause of action arises or accrues when the plaintiff has become entitled to possession by reason of any forfeiture or breach of condition. [550C-D]

3.2 On the facts of this case it is clear that Article 66 would apply in this case because no determination is necessary, as determination by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is no longer necessary. [550D-

In the instant case, the landlady purchased the property on April, 9, 1973. She filed an application for permission after about six months from the date of purchase, and filed eviction application after about four months from the date of the grant of the permission by the Slum Authority. Time begins to run from the date of the knowledge. Knowledge in this case is indisputably in 1973 looked at from any point of view. There is, therefore, no question of limitation in this case. [55OH; 551A]

Ved Prakash v. Chunilal, [1971] Delhi Law Times Vol. 7, 59; Smt Revti Devi v. Kishan Lal, [1970] Rent Control Re- porter Vol. II, 71; Naidar Mal v. Ugar Sain Jain and anoth- er. A.I.R. 1966 Punjab 509; Siri Chand v. Jot Ram, Punjab Law Reporter Vol. LXIII, 1961, 915; Govindji Khera v. Padma Bhatia Attorney, [1972] Rent Control Repor- 542

ter Vol. 4, 195: Harbans Singh and another v. Custodian of Evacuee Property 'P' Block and others, A.I.R. 1970 Delhi 82;

Ujagar Singh v. Likha Singh and another, A.I.R. 1941 Allaha- bad 28, 30; Somdass (deceased) v. Rikhu Dev Chela Bawa Har Jagdass Narokari, Punjab Law Reporter Vol. 85, 184 and K.V.

Ayyaswami Pathar and another v. M.R. Ry. Manavikrama Zamorin Rajah and others, A.I.R. 1930 Madras 430, referred to.

See the full content of this document

Extract

Ganpat Ram Sharma & Ors. VS. Smt. Gayatri Devi

PETITIONER: GANPAT RAM SHARMA & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. GAYATRI DEVI

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/07/1987

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

NATRAJAN, S. (J)

CITATION: 1987 AIR 2016 1987 SCR (3) 539 1987 SCC (3) 576 JT 1987 (3) 99 1987 SCALE (2)46

ACT: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14(1)(h)--'Has built'-'Has acquired'--'Has been allotted'--Interpretation of--Eviction of tenant--When arises--Facts necessary to be pleaded and proved by landlord--Whether tenant entitled to protection once condition in clause (h) fulfilled.

Limitation Act, 1963: Article 66--Possession of immova- ble property--Cause of action----When arises or accrues.

Words and Phrases: 'Has built'--'Has acquired'--'Has been allotted'--meaning of.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 215052 of 1980.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.1980 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No. 138 of 1979.

R.F. Nariman, P.H. Parekh and Suhail Dutt for the Appel- lants.

Ashok Grover for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These appeals by special leave are from the judgment and order dated 28th of August, 1980 of the High Court of Delhi. Three appellants, Jai...

See the full content of this document