D. K. SONI versus P.K. MUKERJEE AND ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 27-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
D.K. SONI 
v. 
P.K. MUKERJEE AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 27, 1987 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
c 
Landlord-Tenant matter-Order of eviction of the tenant on 
grounds of personal need of the landlord challenged-Provisions of 
0.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 (Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act) 
and the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic· 
lion) Act, 1972-Proceedings thereunder. 
Respondent No. 1, Shri P.K. Mukerjee, filed an application 
under the U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 (Temporary Control of Rent and 
Eviction Act) (Old Act), seeking permission to file a suit for eviction of 
his tenant, Harbans Lal Soni, the father of the appellant, D.K. Soni, on 
D the grounds of his bona fide requirement for his personal need. The 
Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application, holding that 
the respondent's requirement was not bona fide. A revision was filed by 
the respondent No. 1 before the Commissioner who allowed the same. 
The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic-
E lion) Act, 1972 (new Act) came into effect on July 15, 1972. On August 
2, 1972, the State Government rejected the representation of the tenant 
(father of the appellant) filed under section 7 of the Old Act against the 
order of the Commissioner aforementioned. The tenant then moved a 
writ petition in the High Court. A Single Judge of the High Court 
allowed the petition and set aside the abovesaid orders of the Commis· 
F 
sioner and the State Government. Upon an appeal being filed by the 
c 
respondent (No. 1) against the order of the Single Judge, a Division 
Bench of the High Court allowed the same, setting aside the order of the 
Single Judge and upholding the above-said orders of the commissioner 
and the State Government, allowing the evictio.n of the tenant. 
G 
In September, 1978, the respondent No. 1 moved an application 
under section 21, read with section 43(2)(rr) of the new Act. Thereafter, 
the respondent executed an agreement as vendor to sell the permises in 
dispute in favour of the vendee, the wife of the appellant, Smt. Madho 
Soni-daughter-in-law of the tenant, Harbans Lal. The agreement was 
dated November 7, 1978, and it mentioned therein that the landlord, 
ff respondent No. 1 had filed an application against the tenant above· 
616 
-
D.K. SONI v. P.K. MUKERJEE 
617 
named. The father-in-law of the vendee-for permission to file a suit for 
A 
..,.. 
eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute on account of the 
respondent's personal need, and that the permission had been granted. 
The agreement recited that a vacant portion of the land of the disputed 
premises, would be in the exclusive possession of the vendor and the rest 
of the property-the disputed premises would be sold to the vendee, 
Smt. Madhu Soni. The agreement stipulated that the vendee or the 
l3 
other members of the family had no right over the portion of the land to 
4: 
be kept with the vendor, and that the appellant had given up his tenancy 
rights in respect of the same, and also that premises would be built on 
the said vacant land with the money to be obtained by selling the dis-
... 
puted house to Smt. Madhu Soni. The price of the house was settled at 
Rs.1,00,000 out of which a sum of Rs.5000 was paid as earnest money, c 
f 
and it was stipulated that the rest of the amount would be paid at the 
_,i._ 
time of registration. It was agreed that the parties would move the 
authorities for permission to transfer as early as possible and the sale-
deed would be executed within one month of the grant of permission 
and notice to the vendee. It was stated that if the vendee failed to get the 
sale-deed executed within the time stipulated, the earnest money of 
D 
Rs.5000 would be forfeited and the property would stand released in 
favour of the vendor. It was also stipulated that the need of the vendor 
for the premises subsisted and the agreement had been entered into to 
enable the vendor to get money out of the sale to construct a house for 
himself on the vacant piece of land. On December 12, 1978, the father of 
~ the appellant, who was the tenant, died, leaving behind a widow, two 
E 
sons, including the appellant, and a daughter. On December 22, 1978, 
the appellant informed the Prescribed Authority before whom the 
application under section 21(1)(a) of the New Act, read with section 
43(2)(rr), was pending, about the death of the tenant, Shri Harbans Lal 
Soni. 
F 
~ 
On March 23, 1979, th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.