Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
SMT. MOHINI BADHWAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAGHUNANDAN SARAN ASHOK SARAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1989
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
CITATION:
1989 AIR 1492 1989 SCR (2) 748
1989 SCC (3) 72 JT 1989 (2) 259
1989 SCALE (1)1123
ACT:
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 possession of a
residence’--Interpretation of.
HEADNOTE:
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 premises had been
let out to her on April 1, 1971. The appellant contended
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 sufficient for the purpose ors.
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.
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appel-
lant-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 formalized on a written document on November 24,
1973 and as the appellant was under legal obligation to sell
the house she was not entitled to enter into and to continue
in possession of the house when it was vacated, and there-
fore, the house could not be said to constitute alternative
accommodation, for the purpose ors. 14(1)(h) of the Act.
Dismissing the appeal,
749
HELD: The Rent Control Tribunal has found against the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
existence 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 occu-
pation. The circumstance that she lost possession on the
date when the eviction petition was filed does not protect
the appellant against s. 14(1)(h) of the Act. [750F-G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1842 of
1981.
From the Judgment and Order dated30.4.1981 of the Delhi
High Court in S.A.O. No. 418 of 1978.
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, H.K. Puri and S.D. Lal for the
Appellant.
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
proceedings 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 in s. 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-
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 appellant had acquired
vacant possession of her house on 20 November, 1973 after
the premises in suit had been let out to her on April, 1971.
The appellant denied that she was liable to ejectment.
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
750
on 24 November, 1973. It was observed that during the period
20 November, 1973 to 24 November, 1973 it must be taken that
she was in possession of alternative accommodation. It was
also held concurrently 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. 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 appeal.
In this appeal it is urged on behalf of the appellant
that before the earlier tenant of tile appellant had vacated
the house the appellant had already entered into an agree-
ment 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 enti-
tled 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
the appellant and Smt. Leela Wati to sell the house to Smt.
Leela Wati and that the agreement was only formalized in a
written document on 24 November, 1973. It is urged that when
the original tenant vacated the house on 20 November, 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 November, 1973 from the original
tenant, that is, four days later, that the appellant execut-
ed an agreement for sale with Smt. Leela Wati. It is appar-
ent that on 20 November, 1973 the appellant came into the
house belonging to her and it was available to her for her
occupation. The 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 the Act.
In the result, the appeal fails .and is dismissed but
there is no order as to costs.
N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.
751