BIBI ZAFIRA KHATOON AND OTHERS versus MOHAMMED HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 17-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 594 
BIBI ZAFIRA KHATOON AND OTHERS 
v. 
MOHAMMED HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 2098 of 2000) 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE, G.S. SINGHVI, 
R. M. LODHA, JJ.) 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
l. 
~·-
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act; 
1982 - s. 12 - Applicability of- Eviction petition on the ground 
of bonafide requirement and default in payment of rent -
Alleged tenant denying tenant-landlord relationship - Other 
0 
person getting impleaded as intervener in the petition 
claiming to be owner of disputed premises put in possession 
by the landlord - Intervener also filing title suit and suit for 
specific performance of agreement against the landlord in 
respect of the suit premises - Suits by intervener dismissed 
and eviction suit decreed by trial court - Appellate court 
E 
confirming the eviction decree -
Execution petitiOn, 
dismissed holding that it was not enforceable against the 
intervener as he was not the tenant - On appeal, held: 
Executing court committed error by refusing to execute 
eviction decree against the intervener - Intervener's title suit 
F 
was dismissed by Courts below - SLP also dismissed - s. 12 
is applicable in the instant case - The provision signifies that 
Court's order for recovery of possession of tenanted premises 
is binding on everyone, whosoever is occupying the premises, 
iffespective of his status. 
G 
Appellant No. 1 and her husband (since deceased) 
filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of bonafide need 
and default in payment of rent against respondent No.2. 
Respondent No.2 denied tenant-landlord relationship and 
H 
594 
. '· 
9-, 
I 
BIBI ZAFIRA KHATOON AND ORS. v. MOHAMMED 
595 
HUSSAIN AND ANR. 
stated that he occupied the premises at the request of the 
A 
plaintiffs to drive away evil spirits from the suit premises; 
and that plaintiffs had entered into agreement with 
respondent No.1 for sale of the premises. Respondent 
No. 1 got himself impleaded in the eviction suit as 
intervener. He also filed title suit and suit for specific 
B 
performance. Trial court dismissed the suits for specific 
performance and the title suit and allowed the eviction 
suit. Appeal was filed against the order of eviction by 
respondent No. 2. Appellate court confirmed the order of 
trial court. 
c 
Appellants filed application for execution 
Respondent No.1 filed objection to it. Executing Court 
dismissed the execution application holding that eviction 
decree was passed only against respondent No. 2 and 
not against respondent No. 1. High Court dismissed the 
D 
revision petition against the order of executing court, 
holding that s.12 of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and 
Eviction) Control Act, 1982 cannot be invoked against a 
person who is not a tenant within the meaning of s.2(h) 
of the Act; and that respondent No.1 could not be treated 
E 
as a tenant of the suit premises. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Executing Court committed an error by · F 
refusing to execute the decree of eviction against 
respondent No.1. The judgment and decree passed by 
the trial court in the title suit have become final because 
the first appeal and special leave petition filed, by 
respondent No.1 have been dismissed by the High Court G 
; 
and Supreme Court, respectively. [Paras 9 and 15] [6~1-
F-G; 605-8] 
2.1. The view taken by the High Court on the 
applicability of Section 12 of Bih'f:-- '3uilding {Lease, Rent 
H 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A and Eviction) Act, 1982; qua respondent No.1 is clearly 
flawed and untenable. By enacting Section 12, the 
legislature has ensured that an order made by the court 
for recovery of possession should be executed in· a 
wholesome manner and the landlord should not be 
B compelled to enter into further prolonged litigation for the 
purpose of getting possession of the suit premises 
simply because the tenant may have, without the"''· 
knowledge or permission of the landlord, inducted some 
other person in the tenanted premises. This is the reason · 
c why Section 12 begins with a non obstante clause and 
lays that where the interest of tenant is determined and 
an order is made by the court for recovery of possession 
of the premises, such order shall be binding on all 
persons, who may be in occupation of the premises, and 
0 vacant possession thereof shall be given to the landlord 
by evicting all such persons therefrom.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.