GANPAT RAM SHARMA & ORS. versus SMT. GAYATRI DEVI

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 539 · Decided: 17-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
GANPAT RAM SHARMA & ORS. 
A 
I. 
SMT. GAYATRI DEVI 
JLL Y !7. 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
B 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14(l)(h)-'Has built'-
Has acquired'-'Has been al/otted'-lnterpretation of-Eviction of 
tenant-When arises-Facts necessary to be pleaded and proved by 
landlord-Whether tenant entitled to protection once condition in 
clause (h) fulfilled. 
Limitation Act, 1963: Article 66-Possession of immovable 
property-Cause of action-When arises or accrues. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Has built'-'Has acquired'-'Has been allotted'-meaning of. 
The respondent purchased the suit premises in AJ>ril, 1973 and in 
September, 197 3 applied to the Competent Authority under the Slum 
. .\rea (Improvement and Clearance! Act, 1956 for permission to evict 
the appellants who were inducted into the premises by the erstwhile 
landlord. The permission was granted in December, 1974 and three 
eviction suits were tiled in April, 1975 on the grounds contained in 
Section 14(l)(al, (h) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the 
Additional Rent Controller held that the ground under Section 1411)1h1 
was made out against all the three appellants. The Rent Control 
Tribunal confirmed the decree. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Before the High Court in revision, it was submitted that when the 
landlady purchased the property she and her vendor had also been 
G 
aware that the tenants owned a house and that on account of this 
• Y 
knowledge the respondent had waived her rights under clause ( h) of 
Section 14(1) o( the Act, that if a tenant built a house or has been 
allotted a residential accommodation, he must acquire/obtain vacant 
possession before he was evicted under clause (h), and that the area 
where the allotted quarter was situated was not governed by the Act 
H 
539 
--
540 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3.S.C.R. 
A 
and, therefore, the ground covered by clause (h) was not available to 
the landlady. 
The High Court construed Section 14(1)(h) of the Act to mean that 
a building constructed by the tenant which is outside the purview of the 
Delhi Rent Control Act on the date of application for ejectment, was yet 
B within Section 14(1J(h), and held that the word 'or' showed the diffe-
rent circumstances in which a tenant was liable to be evicted, that it was 
not necessary for a landlord to prove either that the tenant had built a 
house and acquired vacant possession of the building or that he had 
been allotted and taken possession of the allotted premises, and that 
there was no substance in the argument advanced by the tenants that on 
C account of the knowledge of the landlady that the tenants owned a 
house, she had waived her rights under clause (h) of Section 14(1 l of the 
Act, and dismissed the Revision Petitions. 
In the appeals, it was submitted that there must be a suitable 
residence, one which is a good and a reasonable substitute for the 
D appellants or the landlord before eviction could be ordered under Sec-
tion 14(l)(h) of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeals by special leave, this Court, 
HELD: I. The Rent Control Act is a beneficial legislation to both 
E the landlord and the tenant. It protects the tenant against unreasonable 
eviction and exorbitant rent. It also ensures certain limited rights to 
/'-. 
the landlord to recover possession in stated contingencies. [5508-C] 
( 
2.1 The words 'has built' or 'has acquired' or 'has been allotted' 
1y 
in clause (h) of Section 14(1) clearly mean that the tenant has already 
F built, acquired or been allotted the residence to which he can move and 
that on the date of the application for his eviction, his right to reside 
therein exists. Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the 
words as they stood associated with each other in clause (h) lead to the 
only conclusion that as on the date of application the tenant must be 
possessing a clear right to reside in some other premises than the te-
G 
nancy premises as a matter of his own rightful choice either because he 
~ • 
may have built such premises or acquired vacant possession thereof or 
the same may have been allotted to him. The words 'built' and 'allotted' 
did not mean that after building a residence or after allotment of a 
residence the tenant must also acquire its possession. [5480-FJ 
H 
2.2 The landlord, in order to be entitled to evict the tenant, must 
.,4. 
GANPAT v. GAYATRI 
541 
establish one of the alternative facts positively, either that the tenant A 
has bu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.