B. R. MEHTA versus SMT. ATMA DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 1184 · Decided: 02-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
B.R. MEHTA 
v. 
SMT. ATMA DEVI & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 
[SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI & G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14(J)(h)-Allotment of 
house to wife-A Government employee-Whether disentitles the 
husband to retain the tenanted premises as tenant. 
The premises in question had been let out in April, 1968 to the 
appellant at a monthly rent of Rs.340 by the husband of respondent No. l 
and the father of respondents Nos. 2 to 8. In July, 1977 the landlord 
filed an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of bona 
D fide requirement. In September, )978 appellant's wife was allotted a 
Government quarter due to her employment as a teacher in the Govern-
ment school. In March, 1986 the first respondent filed a petition before 
the Rent Controller that the wife of the appellant having been allotted a 
residential quarter came within the mischief of clause (h) of Section 
14(1) of the Act and was, therefore, liable for eviction. 
E 
F 
The appellant contended that he had not acquired any house and 
that the quarter in question was allotted to his wife on joint allotment 
basis on compassionate grounds and that the same had been 
surrendered and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to be evicted. It 
was further contended that the allotted accommodation could not be 
treated as alternative accommodation for the appellant and his family. 
The Additional Rent Controller held that having regard to the 
provisions -of law, as the tenant had acquired vacant possession for 
residence, he became disentitled to retain the premises in question and, 
therefore, passed an order of eviction. 
i 
1
"' ' 
-.,---: 
G 
The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant. ~ 
The High Court rejected the second appeal. 
In the appeal to this Court, the question for consideration was: 
whether under clause (h) of Section; 14(1) of the Act allotment of a house 
to the wife, who was a Government employee, in all circumstances disen-
H titled the tenant to retain the tenanted premises. 
1184 
~ 
B.R. MEHTA v. ATMA DEVI 
1185 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The premises iu question which the wife occupied 
was indisputably not the matrimonial home. The husband would 
not, therefore, have any statutory or legal right against the Govern-
A 
'r ment to use and enjoy the allotted premises to the wife of the tenant 
because of her job. The tenant cannot he made to lose his tenancy B 
because of the wife acquiring possession of a flat or allotment of a 
flat because of her official duties over which the husband has no 
right or domain or occupation. [1194C-D] 
-""'\ 
-~ 
-(" 
)-
2.1 The purpose of the Delhi Rent Control Act is to control rents 
and evictions; in other words, to control unreasonable eyictions and to 
ensure that in an atmosphere of acute shortage of accommodation, C 
there is proper enjoyment of available spaces by those who want and 
deserve. [1189G-H] 
2.2 Unless acquisition of a premises or allotment of a premises or 
a part of a premises by the tenant in which he has domain which he can D 
reasonably and alternatively use as substitute for the place he is using in 
the tenancy, it cannot le11d to forfeiture of his right to occupy his 
tenanted premises. The case would be otherwise, however, if a tenant 
comes into possession of a premises or is allotted a piece of residence or 
acquires vacant possession of the premises then such a tenant cannot 
prevent, if other conditions are fulfilled under Section 14(l)(h) of the 
Act being liable to forfeiture of his tenancy. [1190B-C] 
E 
2.3 Tenancy is a right vested in the tenant. The main purpose of 
the Act is the protection of tenants from eviction. The various provisos 
to sub-section (1) of section 14 laid down the exception to this rule. The 
intention of the Legislature in divesting the tenant of his right was based 
upon the fact that the tenant had legally acquired another residence as 
F 
of right. There is no law according to which husband and wife could he 
deemed to be one person. [1191E-F] 
2.4 The acquisition of other residence must be by the tenant 
himself before proviso (b) of sub-s. (I) of section 14 of the Act 
would apply. (11910] 
G 
2.5 If a wife or husband acquires a property and the other spouse 
if he/she is the tenant, has a legal right by virtue of such acquisiti<m a11d 
stay there, then only can such acquisition or allotment of premb;es 
would disentitle or attract the provisions of cl. (h) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.