LexDUNLOP INDIA LIMITED versus A.P. RAHNA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1080
DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED
v.
AP. RAHNA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3911 of 2011)
MAY 4, 2011
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Kerela Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965:
c
s.11(4)(v)- Eviction on the ground that tenant ceased to
occupy the premises for six months without reasonable cause ,
- Held: If the premises is let out for business or commercial
purpose, complete cessation of the business/commercial
activity may give rise to a presumption that the tenant had
D ceased to occupy the premises - The inittal burden to show
that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises
continuously for 6 months is always on the landlord· - Once
such evidence is adduced, the burden shifts on the tenant to
prove that there was reasonable cause for his having ceased
E to occupy the tenanted premises for a continuous period of 6
months - In the instant case, the tenant did not produce any
evidence to prove physical occupation of the premises or any
business transaction - It also failed to produce any evidence
to show that there was reasonable cause for non occupation
of the suit premises -
The tenant was declared a sick
F company - It had neither pleaded nor any evidence was
produced to show that the financial stringency was due to the
reasons beyond its control - Therefore, so called financial
stringency cannot be construed as reasonable cause within
the meaning of s.11(4)(v) - The finding of courts below that
G the landlord had succeeded in making out a case for eviction
u/s.11 (4)(v) and there was no reasonable cause for the tenant
to have ceased to occupy the suit premises continuously for
a period of six months is upheld - Rent and eviction.
H
1080
DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED v. A.P. RAHNA AND ANR. 1081
s.11(4)(v) - Financial difficulty of the tenant whether A
reasonable cause for non-occupation of the tenanted
premises - Held: If the suit premises is ·let out for industrial ·
or commercial/business purpose and the same is not used
for the said purpose continuously for a period of six months,
the tenant cannot plead financial crunch as a groc.md to justify
B
non-occupation of the building unless cogent evidence is
produced by him to prove that he could not carry on the
industrial or commercial/business activity due to fiscal
reasons which were beyond his control - Legal possession
of the building by the tenant by itself, is not sufficient for c
refusing an order of eviction unless the tenant proves that
there was reasonable cause for his having ceased to occupy
the building - Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)
Act, 1985 - s.22(1).
Applicability of s.22(1) ~f SICA, 19B5 to eviction D
proceedings - Held: Prohibition contained in s.22(1) does not
operate as a bar to the maintainability of a petition filed for
evictiOn of tenant - Sick Industrial Companies (Special
Provisions) Act, .1985 - s. 22(1 ).
·
Res judicata: Eviction petitions on the ground that tenant
ceased to occupy the premises continuously for six months
from June 1998 without any reasonable cause- Rent Control
Court decreed the suit - Appellate Court set aside the decree
E
- High Court affirmed the same - Meanwhl1e another set of F
eviction petitions filed on the ground that tenant ceased· to
occupy the premises from September 2001 continuously for
six months without any reasonable cause - Held: The second
set of rent control petitions were not barred by res judicata
because the period of non-occupation was different in the two G
petitions and even though the ground of eviction in the' two
sets of petitions was similar, the same were based on different
causes.
Words and phrases:
H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 5 S.C.R.
A
Word "occupy" - Connotation of, in the context of
B
s.11(4){v) of the Kerela Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1965.
.
Occupy and legal possession - Distinction between.
The respondents-landlord filed the eviction petitions
against the appellant-tenant on the various grounds
under the Kerela Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1965 including the ground prescribed under Section
11(4)(v) of the Act alleging that the appellant had ceased
C to occupy the suit premises from June, 1998. The Rent
Control Court held that the appellant had ceased to
occupy the suit premises continuously for six months
without reasonable cause and, therefore, allowed the
petitions and directed the appellant to vacate the
D premiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.