DAVESH NAGALYA (D) & ORS. versus PRADEEP KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 10-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
DAVESH NAGALYA (D) & ORS.
v.
PRADEEP KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3477 of 2010)
AUGUST 10, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Rent Control and Eviction:
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 – s. 12(2) – Deemed vacancy of building in
certain cases – Subsequent events – Death of both partners and no
clause permitting continuation of the partnership by the legal heirs–
Non-residential tenanted premises – Held: Is deemed to be vacant
in law as the tenant is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building–
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Rules, 1972 – Partnership Act – s. 42(c).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 With the death of both partners and not having
any clause permitting continuation of the partnership by the legal
heirs, the non-residential tenanted premises is deemed to be
vacant in law as the tenant is deemed to have ceased to occupy
the building. In view thereof, the order passed by the High Court
in Review Application is set aside.[Para 14][193-F-G]
1.2 The order of permitting SC as partner with PK has come
to an end by efflux of time and operation of law. In terms of section
42(c) of the Partnership Act, partnership stands dissolved by death
of a partner. One of the partners i.e., PK died on 21.05.2004.
The High Court has not taken note of such fact in the review
petition and failed to take into consideration the subsequent
events which were germane to the controversy. SC, the other
partner also died during the pendency of appeal on 25.06.2014.
It was represented to the District Magistrate by PK that SC is a
divorcee and has no children but such assertion was not found to
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 184
184
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
be correct as he had two children, a son and a daughter who were
impleaded as his legal heirs.[Para 13][193-D-F]
1.2 The tenant is deemed to cease to occupy the premises
in question. Consequently, the tenanted property has fallen vacant
as well. The appellants may take recourse to remedy as may be
available to them and may proceed in accordance with law and
the provisions of the Act.[Para 15][193-G]
Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and
Another (2000) 6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538;
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara
Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 376 : [2019]
3 SCR 411; Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor &
General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770 : [1975] 3 SCR 
958; Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate,
Allahabad, U.P and Others (1995) 1 SCC 537 : [1995]
1 SCR 56 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538 
referred to
Para 9
[2019] 3 SCR 411
referred to
Para 9
[1975] 3 SCR  958 
referred to
Para 10
[1995] 1 SCR  56
referred to
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.3477 of
2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2008 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Review Application MCC 105 of 2008 in
Writ Petition No.5282 of 2001.
S. D. Singh, Braj Kishore Mishra, Rahul Kumar Singh, Jitender
Singh, Ms. Meenu Singh, Ram Kripal Singh, Kamla Prasad, Hem Kumar,
Ms. Shweta Sinha, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Adv. for the Respondents.
DAVESH NAGALYA (D) & ORS. v. PRADEEP KUMAR (D)
THR. LRS. AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
High Court of Uttarakhand in Review Application No.105/2008 on
23.04.2008 wherein the factum of death of Pradeep Kumar, the
successor-in-interest of Tika Ram - the tenant, was not considered. The
argument of the appellant was that the partnership between Pradeep
Kumar and Subhash Chand, Respondent No.4 herein has come to an
end automatically on the death of Pradeep Kumar on 21.05.2004.
Therefore, tenancy also has come to an end in view of Section 12 (2) of
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
19721. It may be stated that during the pendency of the present appeal,
Subhash Chand, another partner, who was allowed to enter into
partnership with Pradeep Kumar by the District Magistrate also died on
25.6.2014.
2. The legal heirs of Pradeep Kumar and Subhash Chand were
served with notice in the Special Leave Petition which led to the present
Civil Appeal. An application was filed by the appellant to implead the
legal heirs of Subhash Chand namely, Amit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.