Smt. Vidhya
Dhari Bhagat Vs. Allahabad Law Journal Co. Ltd. [1990] INSC 36 (13 February 1990)
Shetty,
K.J. (J) Shetty, K.J. (J) Sahai, R.M. (J)
CITATION:
1990 AIR 1015 1990 SCR (1) 315 1990 SCC (2) 58 JT 1990 (1) 276 1990 SCALE
(1)245
ACT:
Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14, 19 and 21--Rein- duction of tenant--When
permissible.
HEAD NOTE:
The
appellant filed two eviction petitions against the respondent. The first of
these was under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground
of personal bona fide requirement. The same was decreed in favour 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 possession before the expiry of six months from the
eviction order.
The
second eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act for
non-payment of rent, was compromised between the parties, and the respondent
agreed 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 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 Controller rejected the application. On appeal, the
Rent Control Tribunal directed the appellant to put back the tenant in
possession of the premises. 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.
Allowing
the appeal, this Court,
HELD:
1. Sub-Section (2) of s. 19 operates in favour of the tenant who has suffered
an order of eviction under section 14(1)(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 316 premises or to pay him such
compensation as the Controller thinks fit, if the premises is not occupied by
the landlord after recovering possession, 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 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-section (1) the tenant has no right to invoke the
provisions of sub-section (2) of section 19. [318F-H; 319A-B]
2. In
the instant case, the possession was actually delivered to the appellant by the
tenant as per the compro- mise recorded in the suit based on arrears of rent
under section 14(1)(a) and delivery of such possession cannot 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 premises as per the com- promise 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 maintain-
able. [319E-F]
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.
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.D. Sharma for the Respondent.
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').
The
facts are these: The appellant filed two eviction peti- tions 317 against the
respondents; one was under section 14(1)(e) on 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 December 24, 1977
Suit No.
288/77
was decreed in favour of the appellant. The respond- ent was granted six months
time to evict the premises. In fact the landlord has no right to evict the
tenant for six months when the eviction order is made on the ground speci- fied
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 between the parties. Under the compromise the appellant accepted 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. Accord- ingly, the tenant delivered the possession of the premises,--a
fact which is not in dispute.
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 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 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 reentry--Where a landlord recovers
possession of any prem- ises 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 landlord shall not, except with
the permission of the Con- troller obtained in the prescribed manner, re-let
the whole or any 318 part of the premises within three years from the date of
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
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 out in full:
"19(2)
Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises as aforesaid and the
premises are not occupied by the land- lord or by the person for whose benefit
the premises 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 subsection (1)
or the possession of such premises is transferred to another person for reasons
which do not appear to the Controller to be bona fide, the Controller may, on
an application 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." 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 such possession, the tenant may move the
Controller for a direc- tion 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 obtaining
possession, re-let the premises to third party without obtaining permission of
the Controller under sub-section (1) of section 19, or the 319 possession of
such premises is transferred to another person not bona 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.
With
these requirements of the statute, it may now be examined whether the tenant
has a right 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 into a
compromise in Suit No. 330/77 by which the tenant has willingly surrendered
possession with payment of Rs.6,000 to the 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 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
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(1)(a) and delivery of such possession cannot 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 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, there- fore, 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.
In the
circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Back