Supreme Court of India
SMT. VIDHYA DHARI BHAGATversusALLAHABAD LAW JOURNAL CO. LTD.
- Citation
- 1990 INSC 33
- Decided
- 13 February 1990
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K JAGANNATHA SHETTY
Holding
Section 19(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act applies only to tenants evicted under section 14(1)(e) or sections 14‑A to 14‑D and 21, and therefore the tenant’s application was not maintainable.
Summary
The landlord (appellant) obtained two eviction orders against the tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: one under section 14(1)(e) for personal bona fide requirement and another under section 14(1)(a) for non‑payment of rent, the latter being settled by compromise with the tenant delivering possession. The six‑month period prescribed in section 14(7) for the first decree had not elapsed when possession was handed over under the compromise. Later the landlord sought to let the premises to a third party, and the tenant filed an application under section 19(2) seeking re‑entry. The Rent Controller rejected the application, but the Rent Control Tribunal directed the landlord to restore possession to the tenant, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the scope of section 19(2) and held that it applies only when possession is recovered pursuant to an eviction order under section 14(1)(e) or sections 14‑A to 14‑D and 21. Since the tenant’s surrender of possession arose from a compromise under section 14(1)(a) and the decree under section 14(1)(e) was never executed, the tenant’s application under section 19(2) was not maintainable, and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under section 19(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is maintainable when possession is surrendered under a compromise based on section 14(1)(a) and not under an eviction decree of section 14(1)(e).
- Interpretation of the applicability of section 19(2) to tenants evicted under various provisions of section 14.
Legislation cited
- Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(a), s. 14(1)(e), s. 14(7), s. 14-A, s. 14-B, s. 14-C, s. 14-D, s. 19(1), s. 19(2), s. 21
Subjects
Delhi Rent Control Actevictionsection 14section 19tenant re‑entrylandlord possessioncompromise decreemaintenance of application
Judgment
SMT. VIDHYA DHARI BHAGAT
v. A
ALLAHABAD LAW JOURNAL CO. LTD.
FEBRUARY 13, 1990
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] B
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14, 19 and 21-Re.-
induction of tenant-When permissible.
The appellant filed two eviction petitions against the respondent.
The first of these was under section 14( l )(e) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958, on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The same C
was decreed in favou.r of the appellant, and the respondent was granted
six months time to vacate the premises. This was in accordance with
section 14(7) of the Act prohibiting the landlord from obtaining posses-
sion before the expiry of six months from the eviction order.
D
The second eviction petition flied under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act
for non-payment of rent, was compromised between the parties, and the
respondent agre!'d to put back the appellant in possession of the said
premises. The tenant delivered possession of the premises. When the
possession was delivered, six months period stipulated under Section
14(7) did not expire, for executing the eviction decree obtained in the E
first suit.
Owing to some reasons, the appellant could not continue in the
premises and wanted to let out the premises to a third party. At that
point of time, the erstwhile tenant filed an application under Section
19(2) of the Act claiming re-entry into the premises. The Rent Control- F
ler rejected the application. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal
\ directed the appellant to put back the tenant in possession of the pre-
mises. A revision petition was filed by the appellant ·before the High
Court. It was dismissed in limine. Appellant has preferred this appeal
against the order of the High Court.
G
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
( HELD: l. Sub-Section (2) of s. 19 operates in favour of the tenant
who has suffered an order of eviction under section 14(l)(e) or under
Sections 14-A to 14-D and 21. The tenant may move the Rent Controller
for a direction against the landlord to put him in possession of the H
315
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.
premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks lit,
A
if the premises is not occupied by the landlord after recovering posses-
sion, or not occupied within two months by the person for whose benefit
the premises are held. The tenant has a further right to move the
Controller for such reliefs if the landlord has at any time within three
years from the date of obtaining possession, re-let the premises to
B third party without obtaining permission of the Controller under
sub-section (1) of Section 19, or the possession of such premises is
transferred to another person not bona fide. If the possession is
recovered under any order other than those referred to in sub-sec-
tion (I) the tenant has no right to invoke the provisions of sub-sec-
tion (2) of section 19. [3l8F-H; 319A-B]
c 2. In the instant case, the possession was actually delivered to the
appellant by the tenant as per the compromise recorded in the suit
based on arrears of rent under section 14(l)(a) and delivery of such
possession cannot therefore, be referable to the decree for eviction
under section 14(l)(e). In fact, that decree for eviction in Suit No.
D 288/77 was not put into execution and it was perhaps found unnecessary
to execute that decree since the tenant has surrendered possession of the
premises as per the compromise in Suit No. 330/77 based on arrears of
rent. The application filed by the tenant under sub-section (2) of section
19 of the Act was, therefore, clearly not maintainable. [319E-F]
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3804
of 1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.89 of the Delhi High
Court in SAO No. 84 of 1989.
F Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Mrs. and Mr. Rajan Karanjawala, Atul Chitale
and H.S. Anand for the Appellant.
K.K Jain, J.P. Gupta, Mrs. Darshan Gupta and P.O. Sharma for
the Respondent.
G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal is against the order
for reinduction of the tenant into the premises under section 19(2) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('The Act').
H The facts are these: The appellant filed two eviction petitions
,
) VIDHYA v. ALLAHABADLAWJ'OURNAL [JAGANNATHASHEITY,J.]
against the respondents; one was under section 14(1)(e) oh the ground
of personal bona fide requirement for occupation and· the other was
under section 14(1)(e) for non-payment of rent. The former suit was
registered as Suit No. 288/77 and the later as Suit No. 330/77. On
317
A
December 24, 1977 Suit No. 288/77 was decreed in favour of the appel-
lant. The respondent was granted six months time to evict the pre-
mises. In fact the landlord has no right to evict the tenant for six B
months when the eviction order is made on the ground specified under
section 14(1)(e). Section 14(7) prohibits the landlord from obtaining
possession of the premises before the expiration of a period of six
months from the date of the eviction order.
On April 17, 1978 the Suit No. 330/77 was compromised as bet-
ween the parties. Under the compromise the appellant accepted c
Rs.6,000 as arrears of rent as against the claim of Rs. 29,000 in the
suit. The respondent-tenant in turn agreed to put the appellant in
possession of the premises. Accordingly, the tenant delivered the pos-
session of the premises,-a fact which is not in dispute.
D
It may be significant to note that when the tenant delivered
possession of the premises, six months period provided under section
14(7) did not expire for executing the eviction decree obtained in Suit
No. 288/77.
For some reason or the other the appellant could not.continue in E
the premises. She has to let out the same to a third party. There then
the tenant filed an application under sub-section (2) of Section 19
claiming re-entry into the premises. The Rent Controller rejected that
application, but upon appeal the Rent Control Tribunal has given
relief to the tenant directing the appellant to put back the tenant in
possession of the premises. The High Court has dismissed the Revision F
\ Petition in limine.
It will be .convenient if at this stage, we read sub-section ( 1) of
Section 19 of the Act:
"19(1) Recovery of possession for occupation and re- G
entry-Where a landlord recovers possession of any pre-
mises from the tenant in pursuance of an order made under
( clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 (or
under Sections 14-A, 14-B, 14-C, 14-D and 21), the land-
lord shall not, except with the pertnission of the Controller
obtained in the prescribed manner, re-let the whole or any H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.
part of the premises within three years from the date of
A obtaining such possession, and in granting such permission,
the Controller may direct the landlord to put such evicted
tenant in possession of the premises."
Sub-section (1) refers to recovery of possession of any premises
B from the tenant in pursuance of an order made under Section 14(1)(e)
or under sub-section 14-A, 14-B, 14-C, 14-D and 21. The landlord
shall not re-let such premises within three years from the date of
obtaining possession from the tenant without the permission of the
Controller.
Sub-section (2) of Section 19 is more important and must be set
c out in full:
"19(2) Where a landlord recovers possession of any pre-
mises as aforesaid and the premises are not occupied by the
landlord or by the person for whose benefit the premises
D are held, within two months of obtaining such possession or
the premises having been so occupied are, at any time
within three years from the date of obtaining possession,
re-let to any person other than the evicted tenant without
obtaining the permission of the Controller under sub-
section ( 1) or the possession of such premises is transferred
E to another person for reasons which do not appear to the
Controller to be bona fide, the Controller may, on an appli-
cation made to him in this behalf by such evicted tenant
within such time as may be prescribed, direct the landlord
to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay
him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit."
F
This sub-section again operates in favour of the tenant who has
suffered an order of eviction under section 14(1)(e) or under Section
14-A to 14-D and 21. The landlord after recovering possession of the
premises does not occupy the same or it is not occupied by the person
for whose benefit the premises are held, within 2 months of obtaining
G such possession, the tenant may move the Controller for a direction
against the landlord to put him in possession of the premises or to pay
him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit. Not merely that,
the tenant has a further right to move the Controller for such reliefs if
the landlord has at any time within three years from the date of obtain-
ing possession, re·let the premises to third party without obtaining
H permission of the Controller under sub-section ( 1) of section 19, or the
VIDHYA v. ALLAHABAD LAW JOURNAL[JAGANNATHASHETTY,J.[ 319
possession of such premises is transferred to another person not bona A
), fide. This right of the tenant to re-enter the premises is, however,
restricted only in cases where the tenant is ordered to be evicted either
under section 14(1)(e) or under sections 14-A to 14-D and 21. If the
possession is recovered under any order other than those referred to in
sub-section (1) the tenant has no right to invoke the provisions of
sub-section (2) of section 19. B
' With these requirements of the statute, it may now be examined
whether the tenant has a !ight to seek re-induction into the premises
under sub-section (2) of section 19.
From the narration of facts it will be seen that the parties entered c
into a compromise in Suit No. 330/77 by which the tenant has willingly
surrendered possession with payment of Rs.6,000 to t)le appellant as
arrears of rent. On that day there was no execution of the decree for
eviction obtained in Suit No. 288/77. It was, however, contended that
the tenant willingly surrendered possession of the premises without
waiting for the execution of the eviction decree in Suit No. 288/77 and D
there is no such bar for surrendering of possession under section 14(7)
of the Act. We could have accepted this submission if there was only a
decree for possession in Suit No. 228/77, but that is not so in the
l instant case. The possession was actually delivered to the appellant by
the tenant as per the compromise recorded in the suit based on arrears
of rent µnder section 14(1)(a) and delivery of such possession cannot E
therefore, be referable to the decree for eviction under section
14(1)(e). In fact, that decree for eviction in Suit No. 288/77 was not
put into execution and it was perhaps found unnecessary to execute
that decree since the tenant has surrendered· possession of the pre-
mises as per the compromise in Suit No. 330/77 based on arrears of
rent. The application filed by the tenant under sub-section (2) of sec- F
\ tion 19 of the Act was, therefore, clearly not maintainable.
In the result the appeal is allowed, and in reversal of the order of
the Rent Control Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court, we restore
the order of the Rent Controller.
G
In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
{ G.N. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Delhi Rent Control Act"Sign in to search