SMT. MOHINI BADHWARversusRAGHUNANDAN SARAN ASHOK SARAN

A
                    SMT. MORINI BADHWAR
                             v.
               RAGHUNANDAN SARAN ASHOK SARAN

                                APRIL 27, 1989

B      [R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.]
                                                                            f "\
        Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14(1)(h)-Tenant
  obtained vacant possession of own house-Sold it four days later-
  Circumstance that tenant lost possession on the date of filing of eviction
  petition-Whether affords protection against eviction-'Acquired vacant
C possession of a residence'-lnterpretation of.

         The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the
    appellant-tenant from the suit premises under s. 14(1)(h) of the Delhi
    Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground that the appellant had acquired
    vacant possession of her house on November 20, 1973, after the suit
D   premises had been let out to her on April 1, 1971. The appellant con-
    tended that she was not liable to be ejected.

          The Assistant· Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal ;...
    concurrently held that even though the house owned by the appellant
    was not in her occupation on the date the petition was filed, it was
E   sufficient for the purpose ofs. 14(1)(h) that sometime before the filing of
    the petition she had obtained vacant possession of the house, and thus
    had alternative accommodation during November 20-24, 1973, i.e.,
    from the date she obtained vacant possession from her tenant till she
    sold it. The High Court also held that the ground for ejectment had ~
    been made out when the eviction petition was filed.                         !

F          In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellant-tenant
    it was contended that before the earlier tenant had vacated the house,
                                                                                ?
    the appellant had already entered into an oral agreement to sell the
    house to another person, which was formalised on a written document
    on November 24, 1973 and as the appellant was under legal obligation
G   to sell the house she was not entitled to enter into and to continue in     'r--
    possession of the house when it was vacated, and therefore, the house
    could not be said to constitute alternative accommodation, for the
    purpose ofs. 14(1)(h) of the Act.

          Dismissing the appeal,
H
                                       748
                 I




                     MOHINI v. RAGHUNANDAN [PATHAK, CJI                      749

            HELD: The Rent Control Tribunal has found against the exis-
                                                                                    A
     tence of any oral agreement for the sale of the suit house. It was only
     after four days of obtaining possession on November 20, 1973 from the
     original tenant that the appellant executed an agreement for sale. Thus,
     it is clear, that the appellant ,came into the house belonging to her on
     November 20, 1973 and it was available to her for her occupation. The
     circumstance that she lost possession on the date when the eviction            B
     petition was filed does not protect the appellant against s. 14(1)(h) of the
     Act. t750F-G)

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No, 1842
•
     of 1981.

          From the Judgment and Order dated.30.4.1981 of the Delhi High
                                                                                    c
     Court in S.A.O. No. 418 of 1978.

         Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, H.K. Puri and S.D. Lal for the
     Appellant.
                                                                                    D
           Dr. Y.S. Chitale, S.N. Kacker, Mukul Mudgal and N.S. Das
     Bahl for the Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           PATHAK, CJ. This is a tenant's appeal arising out of proceed- E
     ings for her ejectment.

           The respondent, as landlord of the premises let to the appellant,
     filed a petition for her eviction on the ground set forth ins. 14(1)(h) of
     the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that is to say, that the appellant had
     "acquired vacant possession of ....... a residence" after the com- f
     mencement of the Act, viz, her own house D-196, Defence Colony,
     New Delhi and was therefore liable to hand over possession of the
     rented premises occupied by her to the respondent. It was alleged that
     the appe1J1ant had acquired vacant possession of her house on 20
     Novembeir, 1973 after the premises in suit had been let out to her on
     1 April, 1971. The appellant denied that she was liable to ejectment.      G

          The Assistant Rent Controller, Delhi, and the Rent Control
     Tribunal concurrently held that the appellant was owner of house
     D-196, Defence Colony, New Delhi, that on 20 November, 1973 the
     previous tenant had vacated the premises and handed over vacant
     possession and that thereafter she had sold it to one Smt. Leela Wati          H
,,
    750                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1989) 2 S.C.R.

    on 24 November, 1973. It was observed that during the period
A 20 November, 1973 to 24 November, 1973 it must be taken that she was in
    possession of alternative accommodation. It was also held con-
    currently that even though on the date the petition for eviction was
    filed, the house, D-196, Defence Colony, New Delhi, was no longer in
    the occupation of the appellant it was sufficient for the purpose of s.
B   14(1)(h) that some time prior to the filing of the eviction petition the
    appellant had obtained possession of the house. The High Court
    endorsed the view taken by it earlier in Hem Chand Baid v. Smt. Prem
    Wati Parekh., AIR 1980 Delhi 1 and in the view that the ground for
    ejectment had been made out when the eviCtion petition was filed it
                                                                               •
    dismissed the appe,al.
c         In this appeal it is urged on behalf of the appellant that before
    the earlier tenant of the appellant had vacated the house the appellant
    had already entered into an agreement to sell the house to another
    person, and that therefore in the presence of that obligation it was not
    possible to say that when the house was vacated the appellant was
D   entitled to enter into and to continue in possession of the house. It is
    contended before us that before the original tenant vacated the house
    there was an oral agreement between the appellant and Smt. Leela
    Wati to sell the house to Smt. Leela Wati and that the agreement was
    only formalised in a written document on 24 November, 1973. It is
    urged that when the original tenant vacated the house on 20 Novem-
E   ber, 1973 the_ appellant was under a legal obligation to sell the
    house to Smt. Leela Wati, and that in the circumstances, the house
    cannot be said to constitute alternative accommodation for the
    purpose of s. 14(1)(h) of the Act. The Rent Control Tribunal has
    found against the eXistence of any such oral agreement. Upon that it
    would seem that it was only after obtaining possession on 20 Novem-
F   ber, 1973 from the 0riginal tenant, that is, four days later, that the
    appellant executed an agreementfor sale with Smt. Leela Wati. It is
    apparent that on 20 November, 1973 the appellant came into the house
    belonging to her and it was available to her for her occupation. The
                                                                               J
    circumstances that she lost possession on the date when the eviction
    petition was filed does not protect the appellant against s. 14(1)(h) of
G   the Act.

         In the result, the appeal fails .and is dismissed but there is no
    order as to costs.

    N.P.V.                                               Appeal dismissed.