LexCHITRANJAN BURMAN versus OM PRAKASH BAJORIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/
A
CHITRANJAN BURMAN
v.
OM PRAKASH BAJORIA AND ORS.
OCTOBER4, 2001
B
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
Rent and Eviction:
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947:
C
S.11 ( 1 )( d)-Proper tender of rent-Eviction of tenants sought on ground
of non-payment of rent and for personal requirement-Tenanted premises, a
shop, belonging to Hindu-Undivided.family-Tenants 'plea that rent was tendered
by money order to one of the co-owners, who refused to accept the same-That.
since landlords own many residential and non-residential buildings, they did
D
not reasonably require premises in good.faith-High Court rejecting both the
grounds of laf!dlords, but remanding the case to .first appellate court with
regard to default for two months-Appeals by landlords as also by tenants-
Held, in the absence o.f notice to tenants that Karta of family alone was entitled
to receive rent, rent having been sent by money order to one of the co-owners
E
and one of the plaint{ffs and she having refused to receive the same, there was
a valid tender~High Court committed no illegality in coming to the conclusion
it did on this aspect-Tenants tendered rent to one of the co-owners and one of
the plaintiffs who refused to receive the same-This should not result in a trap
to sue tenants for eviction on ground of non-payment qf rent-Since there has
been a proper tender of rent by tenants and improper refusal to receive the same
F
by landlords, it wa~: unnecessary for High Court to remand the case to first
appellate Court to ascertain. whether there was def a ult in payment qf rent for
the two months mentioned in its judgment -Appeal o.f tenants allowed and that
of landlords dismissed-Hindu Law-Landlord-tenant matter-Rent tendered
to one o.f the members of Hin.du undivided family who refused to receiv·e the
G
same-Held, a valid tender.
Priya Bala Ghosh (Smt.) and Ors. v. Bajran.glal Singhania & Ors.,
[1993] Suppl. 1 SCC 24, relied on.
Code o.f Civil Procedure, 1908:
H
Order 22, Rules I and 2-Abatement by party's death-Appeal by tenants
600
CHITRANJAN BURMAN v. OM PRAKASH BAJORIA
601
against their eviction under Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
A
Act, 1947-Death of some of appellant-tenants-Held, there is no provision in
the Act confering right on heirs of a tenant, protection afforded by Act is
available only to a tenant and not to his heirs or legal representatives-
Stattttory tenancy is not heritable and on death of some of the appellants, their
legal representatives did not have any interest and in view of r.l appeal did not
abate and not bringing on record the legal represent£ttives was inconsequential-
Cause of action survived to other appellants and they rightly prosecuted second
appeal in High Court having regard to provisions of r. 2.
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 136-New plea-Held, cannot be entertained as the same was not
raised in second appeal be.fore High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 975 of 1998.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.97 of the Patna High Court in
Second Appeal No. 29 of 1980 (R).
WITH
C.A. No. 3972 of 1998.
B
c
D
S.B. Sanyal, A.K. Pandey, Ashok Pandey, Ms. Monika Vem1a, K. Pandey,
E
Devashish Bharuka, M.S. Mollah, Sunil Gupta, Vivek Vishnoi, S.K. Singh and
Gopal Prasad for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
These two appeals, by special leave, are from the judgment of the High
F
Court of Patna, Ranchi Be~ch, in Second Appeal No. 29of1980 dated September
30, 1997. They arise under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction)
Control Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). Civil Appeal No. 975 of 1998 is by
the tenants (referred to in this judgment as 'Burmans') and Civil Appeal No.
3972 of 1998 is by the landlords (referred to in this judgment as 'Bajorias').
G
The facts giving rise to these appeals may be stated in brief to appreciate
the controversy in them. Title Suit No. 111 of 1974 was filed in the Court of
Munsiff, Ranchi by Bajorias against Lachmi Sahu, the original tenant and the
predecessor-in-interest of Burmans, for his eviction from shop No. 1 measuring
6 x 8 x 6 feet (part of Municipal holding No. 1184), Ward II. Randhir Prasad
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
Street, Upper Bazar, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as 'the shop'). The eviction
was sought on two grounds : (i) non-paymExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.