SMT. SARLA NARULAversusSMT. RAGHBIR KAUR REHAL & ANR.

                             SMT. SARLANARULA
                                                                                   A
                                     v.
                      SMT. RAGHBIR KAUR REHAL & ANR.

                                    OCTOBER 6, 1987

                  [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA. JJ.]                          B

                 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14(l)(e)--Eviction of
           tenant on ground of bona fide necessity of landlady-Abandonment of
           the premises by original tenant-No novation of original agreement of
           tenancy-Locus Standi of party in occupation-Whether tenancy came
           to an end.
                                                                                   c
t                 The premises in question was taken on lease at a monthly rent of
           Rs.350 by the tenant-Company. The rent in respect of the said premises
           was being deposited in the bank. Respondent No. I-The landlady was
           living abroad and as she and her husband wanted to come back and
           settle down in India they required the said premises.                   D

                 The landlady instituted proceedings against the tenant-Company
           to which the appellant was not a party. The husband of the appellant
           was an employee of the tenant-Company and he retired in 1973. The
    -j
           appellant filed an application for being impleaded as a party, contend-
           ing that the rent was deposited on account of the appellant's husband, E
           and after his death on account of his heirs individually and not on


-          account of or on behalf of the erstwhile tenant of the premises and the
           tenant did not oppose the eviction petition because the tenant had left
           the premises, and the appellant's husband had become the tenant in his
           own right. The application was rejected, and the order of eviction was
           passed against the tenant under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Con- F
    ~      trol Act, 1958. The appeal against the above decision was dismissed by
           the Rent Control Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the appeal.

                 Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

                HELD: After the surrender of the tenancy by the Company, the G
           appellant's husband, or his heirs, after his death, had no locus standi,
           and had no right to be joined as party. !366G I
    (""'
                The tenancy was originally entered into between the landlady or
           on her behalf and the ('9mpany of which the appellant's husband was
           an employee. Admittedly, the tenancy came to an end after the tenant·   H

                                             363
    364                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1988] I S.C.R.

  Company abondoned the premises. The husband of the appellant or
A after his death his heirs could not continue unless there was a fresh
  agreement of tenancy in their favour or novation of the original agree·
  ment of tenancy. There are no cogent or available materials to show
  that there was actually a new contract entered into between the
  husband of the appellant and the landlady, or novation of the original
B agreement. !366C-D]
                                                                              ."I"'".
          The High Court has found that there was no receipt in possession
    of the appellant regarding the payment of rent, and that there was
    genuine evidence to show that the landlady needed the premises bona
    fide. There were concurrent findings of facts of the two courts
    below. [366Hl
c
        The appellant and her family have been residing in the premises
  for quite sometime. The landlady herself has not yet arrived in India.
  The husband is very much in India awaiting the vacancy of the house.
  In the circumstances, the appellant and her family would be entitled to
D stay in the premises upto 15.6.1988. [367Cl

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2608
    of 1984.

       From the judgment and Order dated 29 .5 .1984 of the Delhi High
E Court in S.A.O. No. 128 of 1984.

          U.R. Lalit, Vivek Gambhir, Sanjay Sareen and S.K. Gambhir
    for the Appellant.

         Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, Mrs. Indra Sawhney and N.S. Das Bahl for
                                                                                  -
f   the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special
    leave from the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 29th May, 1984.
G   By the aforesaid order the appellant was refused the prayer of being
    joined as a party in the proceedings in execution and the order of
    eviction against the tenant was passed under section 14(1)(e) of Delhi
    Rent Control Act, 1958.

          In order to appreciate the question it should be noted on 16.1.67
H   there was a lease in favour of respondent No. 2 of a monthly rent of
                    SMT. SARLA v. SMT. R.K. REHAL [MUKHARJI, J.]           365


..>(      Rs.350 p.m. in respect of the premises in question in Greater Kailash,
                                                                                   A
          New Delhi. The tenant was a company called M/s Bharat Carbons &
          Ribbons Manufacturing Company. The husband of the appellant Late
          T.R. Narula was .an employee of the said Company. He retired in
          1973. The rent in respect of the premises had been deposited. It is,
          however, not certain as to on whose account the rent was deposited.
          On the one hand, the appellant contends that the rent was deposited B
          on account of the appellant's husband, and after the death of Shri T .R.
          Narula on account of heirs of said T.R. Narula, deceased individually
          and not on account of or on behalf of the erstwhile tenant of the
          premises in question. It appears from the record that respondent No. 1
          was in England at the relevant time. The respondent No. 1 described
          himself as a permanent settlee in England. The said respondent was at
          all relevant times represented by her attorney. The respondent No. I is
                                                                                   c
~         the landlady of the premises in question is still in England. Their case
          is that both the husband and wife are fairly well advanced in age and
          wish to come back and settle down in India and want to live their last
          days of life in their own house. They bona fide, require the premises in
          question. This question of bona fide need has been held in their favour D
          and appropriate proceedings instituted by the landlady against the
          tenant-Company to which the appellant was not a party. Indeed, the
          tenant did not really oppose the eviction petition because as, according
          to their version, the tenant had left the premises and Shri T.R. Narula
          had become the tenant, in his own right. The respondents did not
    ·~
          accept that position. There was an application made by the widow of E
          Late T.R. Narula to be joined as a party in the suit. This was refused
          by learned Judge for which reasons have been given. The learned

-         Judge of the High Court has noted that it was the .admitted position
          that M/s Bharat Carbons & Ribbons Manufacturing Company was the
           tenant and the appellant's husband was an employee of the said com-
          pany. He retired in 1973. The rent has been paid since then. However, F
          the landlady was residing out of India and she closed her account
          when she came back to India and in respect of that the rent was being
    ""'   deposited according to the appellant which appears at page 126 of the
           Paper Book. The landlady protested by a letter written to the Bank.
          The High Court has noted that admittedly there was no receipt in pos-
          session of the appellant regarding payment of rent. Counsel for the G
           appellant drew our attention to a document which is described as a
          receipt for the rent for the month July 1973. Counsel states that this
 ri-       was filed in the High Court. Counsel further states that there are
           ~u?sequent receipts. As against these versions of the appellants herein
          1t 1s asserted that these receipts were not genuine documents put in.
          Subsequent receipts that had not been, according to the respondents, H
    366                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1988] I S.C.R.

A   produced befbre the High Court and at least relied before the High            '!'--
    Court, were not there. The learned Judge of the High Court procee-
    ded on the basis that there was no evidence that there was receipt in
    possession of the appellant regarding payment of rent. A strong point
    was made before us that if money was received from the appellant or
    on behalf of the appellant, it must be presumed that there was surren-
B   der of tenancy by M/s Bharat Carbons & Ribbons Manufacturing
    Company and there was tenancy agreement between Late T.R.
    Narula or his wife and the landlady. No such evidence of the accept-
    ance of rent was advanced before the High Court or before us to
    sustain that ground.


C
        The tenancy was originally entered into between the landlady or
  on her behalf and the company of which T.R. Narula, since deceased,
  was an employee. There was no evidence addJced and no averment
                                                                                  -4
  made that the tenancy was for the then tenant. Admittedly that
  tenancy, as it appears from the records and the evidence, came to an
  end after the tenant-company abandoned the premises, and that it was
D so done was not seriously disputed and T.R. Narula, since deceased or
  after his death his heirs could not continue unless there was a fresh
  agreement of tenancy in their favour or novation of the original agree-
  ment of tenancy. There is no cogent, reliable or dependable evidence
  of the same.

E          In view of the categorical finding of the High Court it is difficult
    to accept the submissions on behalf of the appellant. Apart from that
    there are no ~!her cogent or available materials to show that there was
    actually a new coutract entered into between Late T.R. Narula and the
    landlady. On the other hand the contention of the landlady and her
    representative since she was staying away has been to deny any con-
                                                                                     -
F   nection with the appellant. Furthermore, the alleged notice of the
    termination of surrender of tenancy was sent to the landlady in rather
    suspicious circumstances. It is not necessary to dilate in detail on
    those. The evidence on record advanced in support of the appellant on
    this aspect cannot and does not inspire any credence or confidence. If
    that is the position than after the surrender of tenancy by the company,
G   late T.R. Narula or his heirs had no /ocus-standi and had no right to be
    joined as party. The High Court notes that there was genuine evidence
    to show that the landlady needed the premises bona fide. There were
    concurrent findings of facts of the two courts below and the appellant
    did not raise any contentions at this belated stage.

H         In the aforesaid view of the matter and in the facts and circum-
                    SMT. SARLA v. SMT. R.K. REHAL (MUKHARJI, J.(              367

..,..,,   stances of the case we find no ground under Article 136 of the Con- A
          stitution to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.

                The appeal must, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed,
          specially in view of the fact that the landlady needs the premises for
          her family and for her own bona fide need. Pa1ties will pay their own B
          costs.

                There is, however, another aspect of the matter. The appellant
          and her family have been residing there for quite sometime, The land-
          lady herself has not yet arrived in India and is awaiting her arrival since
          arrangements have to be made in India. The husband is very much in
          India awaiting vacancy of the house. In the circumstances we direct C
          that the appellant and her family would be entitled to stay in the pre-
          mises upto 15.6.88 upon filing the usual undertaking in this court
          within three weeks from today. The appeal is dismissed with the
          aforesaid directions. Parties will pay their own costs. They will con-
          tinue to deposit cheques to the counsel for respondents for the remain-
          ing period,                                                                 D

          N.P.V.                                               Appeal dismissed.




-