ABDUL SATTAR versus KHUTEJABI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 1077 · Decided: 01-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ABDUL SA TI AR 
A 
v. 
KHUTEJABI AND ORS. 
MAY I, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961: 
Ss. 3(r) and 21(/) (p)-Eviction petition on the ground 1t!s 21(/)(p)--
Residenlial premises-'Tenant '-Allotment of accommodation to son of tenant- C 
Death of tenant-Devolution of tenancy rights on heirs-Landlord filing eviction· 
petition on the ground that son of tenant had been allotted a house by Housing 
Board--Held, as per definition of 'tenant' contained in clause (r) of s. 3, : 
during the life time of the tenant, his spouse, son, daughter, father or mother 
would not be included in the definition of 'tenant'-Building of a house or· D 
acquisition of vacant possession or allotment of a suitable building, as referred 
in s.21(/)(p), must be to the tenant in his capacity as a tenant though such 
event may be referable to a point of time, whether before or after the coming 
into operation of this provision--011 the date the house was alloued to the son 
the tenant was the father and he did not incur liability for eviction under 
clause (p)-Allotment of house was to a person who was not a tenant on the E 
date of allotment-Rights of tenancy devolved on the heirs much after the 
allotment, and on the date of devolution of tenancy rights the son was already 
holding the a/lolled house--There was no allotment of house after the devolution 
of tenancy right on the heirs-Clause (p) cannot be applied in such 
cil'Cumstances to the heirs rendering them liable to be evicted. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7588 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.8.98 of the Karnataka High 
Comt in H.R.R.P. No. 373, of 1995. 
G 
S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni and Ms. Sangeeta 
Kumar for the Appellant. 
R.S. Hegde, Chander Prakash, A. Nagabhushanam and P.P. Singh for 
1077 
H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
A petition for eviction of the tenants on the ground available under 
clause (p) of sub-Section ( 1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control 
B Act, 1961 (hereinafter, 'the Act' for short) was allowed by the trial court and 
the order of eviction was confirmed by the revisional court under Sectio;1 50 
of the Act. However, in the revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. preferred 
by the tenants, the High Court has reversed the findings of the two courts 
below and held the petition liable to be dismiss1~d. The aggrieved landlord 
C has filed this appeal by special leave. 
The admitted facts are that the appellant is the owner-cum-landlord of 
the suit premises. In the year 1955, the landlord inducted late Mohammed 
Gouse as tenant in the suit premises, which are residential. The tenant's 
family consisted of his wife and four sons, who have all been residing in the 
D suit premises jointly with the tenant as members of his family. In the year 
1984, a house came to be allotted by the Housing Board to one of the sons 
of the tenant, namely, Mohammed Ismail. Mohammed Gouse, the tenant, 
died in the year 1988 and the tenancy rights devolved upon the widow and 
the four sons including the son in whose name the house from the Housing 
Board had stood allotted in the year 1984. In the year 1990, the landlord 
E initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenants (the five heirs of late 
Mohammed Gouse) on the ground that one of the tenants has been allotted 
a building suitable for their residence. 
F 
G 
H 
Section 21 (I )(p) of the Act reads as under: 
21. Protection of tenants against eviction. (I) Notwithstanding 
anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no 
· order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall 
be made by any Court or other authority in favour of the landlord 
against the tenant. 
Provided that the CoUl1 may on an application made to it, make 
an order for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more 
of the following grounds only, namely:-
xx 
xx 
xx 
(p) that the tenant whether before or after the coming into operation 
-
ABDUL SA TT AR v. KHUTEJABI 
1079 
of this part has built, or acquired vacant.possession of, or been allotted, A 
a suitable building. 
xx 
xx 
xx 
In the opinion of the High Court, the allotment of house in the name 
of Mohammed Ismail, respondent No.4, was prior to their having inherited B 
tenancy rights, that is, prior to a date when they became tenants and, therefore, 
the case was not co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.