LexDR. H. K. SHARMA versus SHRI RAM LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. DR. H. K. SHARMA v. SHRI RAM LAL (Civil Appeal Nos. 1237-1238 of 2019) JANUARY 28, 2019 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.] Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: s.21(1)(a) – Application under – Seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide need – Maintainability of, challenged by the tenant/lessee on the ground that relationship of lessor-lessee/ landlord-tenant had ceased to exist as the parties had entered into agreement to sale/purchase of the suit house – Prescribed Authority dismissed the application agreeing with the plea of the tenant/lessee – Appellate Court also affirmed the view of Prescribed Authority – In Writ Petition, High Court set aside the orders of the Prescribed Authority and appellate Court and allowed the application for eviction – On appeal, held: As per s.111(e) and (f) of the Transfer of property Act lease can be determined by express or implied surrender – The conditions of the sale agreement do not make out a case of express or implied surrender – Therefore, sale agreement did not result in termination of the tenancy and hence application was maintainable – The finding of High Court as regards bona fide requirement, being question of fact, needs no interference – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.111(e) and (f). Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 A lease of an immovable property is a contract between the lessor and the lessee. Their rights are governed by Sections 105 to 117 of Transfer of Property Act (TP Act) read with the respective State Rent Laws enacted by the State. Section 111 of the TP Act deals with the determination of lease. Clauses (a) to (h) set out the grounds on which a lease of an immovable [2019] 1 S.C.R. 548 548 A B C D E F G H 549 property can be determined. Clauses (e) and (f) provide that a lease can be determined by an express surrender; in case, the lessee yields up his interest under the lease to the lessor by mutual agreement between them whereas Clause (f) provides that the lease can be determined by implied surrender. [Paras 28, 29 and 30][554-G-H; 555-A-B] 1.2 None of the conditions set out in the sale agreement 13.05.1993 can be construed for holding that the parties intended to surrender the tenancy rights. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property, as necessary provision to that effect was not made by providing a specific clause in the agreement. On the other hand, the conditions set out in the agreement do not make out a case of express surrender under clause (e) or implied surrender under clause (f) of Section 111 of the TP Act. [Paras 33, 34][555-G-H; 556-A-B] 1.3 Thus, the tenancy in question between the parties did not result in its determination as contemplated under Section 111 of TP Act due to execution of the agreement dated 13.05.1993 between the parties for sale of the suit house. [Para 38][557-C] 1.4 The respondent (lessor) was rightly held entitled to file an application against the appellant (lessee) under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and seek the appellant’s eviction from the suit house after determining the tenancy in question. [Para 39][557-D] Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. v. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 660 : [1976] 3 SCR 789 – relied on. R. Kanthimathi & Anr. v. Beatrice Xavier (Mrs.) (2009) 9 SCC 339 – distinguished. 2. The question as to whether the respondent has made out a case of his bona fide need for his residence and the members of his family as contemplated under the Rent Act, being a question of fact, the finding recorded by the High Court on this question DR. H. K. SHARMA v. SHRI RAM LAL A B C D E F G H 550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. does not call for any interference in the present appeal. It is binding on this Court. Even otherwise, there is no good ground to interfere in the finding for the reason that the respondent being a landlord and a retired man has every right to live in his house with his family. Therefore, there is no perversity in the finding of the High Court on this issue. [Para 41][557-F-G] Case Law Reference (2000) 9 SCC 339 distinguished Para 18 [1976] 3 SCR 789 relied on Para 31 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1237-1238 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.