HIRALAL KAPUR versus PRABHU CHOUDHURY

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1058 · Decided: 19-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HIRALAL KAPUR 
v. 
PRABHU CHOUDHURY 
FEBRUARY 19, 1988 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.J 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 115-High Court-Powers 
of revision under Rent Control Acts-Not entitled to enter into merits of 
factual controversies between parties and reverse findings of fact. 
y 
c 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 14(i)(e) and section 25 
J 
B(8)-Landlord-An advocate-Whether entitled to possession of pre-/\ 
mises for bonafide personal residential requirement of himself and for 
. 
setting up an office in a part thereof-Premises let out pursuant to oral 
agreement-Monthly. rent Rs.600 tenant paying rent by two separate 
cheques-Rs.250 drawn by himself and Rs.350 drawn in the name of 
D 
trust-Whether there are two separate tenancies. 
The appellant is an advocate. Pursnant to an oral agreement, he 
let ont to the respondent a part of his residential premises comprising of 
two rooms above the garage, referred to as "servants' quarters" and a 
hall on the ground floor, in July 1976 at Rs.600 p.m. Since November 
E 
1976 the respondent started paying two separate amounts of Rs.250 and 
Rs.350 the latter amount by means of cheques in the name ofBalkunj, a 
registered trust, of which he was the Secretary. 
In Jannary 1980 the landlord filed an eviction petition nnder pro-
viso (e) to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the 
F 
ground that he required the servants' quarters for his servants and. the 
hall for his office and library. The respondent resisted the petition on a 
number of grounds. The two grounds with which this Court is con-
cerned are that ( t) two separate tenancies came to be created in respect 
of the premises in dispute and hence the petition as filed was not main-
tainable and (2) the intended nse of the hall as office constitnted a 
G 
non-residential use, and therefore outside the purview of proviso (e) to 
section 14(1). 
The Rent Controller held that there was a single tenancy, 
that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his nse, and 
that setting up his office and library fell within the scope of the relevant 
H statutory provision. The High Court in the revision petition under snb-
1058 
n -
" -
,, 
-
HIRALAL KAPUR v. PRABHU 
1059 
section (8) of section 2SB of the Act, reversed the findings of the Rent 
Controller and modified the eviction order passed by him restricting it 
to the servant's quarters only. 
In regard to the first ground, the respondent submits that the fact 
. that the landlord was aware of the use of the hall by the trust and his 
acceptance of the cheques on behalf of the trust prove that the trust had 
i 
been accepted as the tenant in respect of the hall. In this connection the 
respondent relies on the appellant's letter dated 26. l l. 1978 to the 
respondent, in which the landlord specifically refers to the fact that five 
of the dishonoured cheques being returned by him "belong to the 
trust". The appellant, on the other hand, submits that acceptance of 
. two cheques alone cannot lead to the conclusion that a separate tenancy 
(
.l., had been created in respect of the hall between Balkunj and the 
'petitioner. The appellant further relies on the two letters dated 5.8.1977 
and 15. l.1978 written by him to the respondent categorically denying 
the tenancy on behalf of Balkunj. He further submits that the finding of 
the Rent Controller that there was only a single tenancy was essentially 
A 
B 
c 
a finding of fact, based on material and circumstances, with which the D 
High Court should not have interfered. 
In regard to the second ground the respondent urges that the 
intended use of the hall by the appellant as office and library could not 
amount to a residential requirement. 
Allowing the appeal this Court, 
E 
HELD: (l) It is no doubt true that the rent has been paid by two 
cheques since November 1976 but the mere payment of rent by two 
cheques, in the circumstances of this case, cannot mean that there were 
two tenancies. The landlord was entitled to a rent of Rs.600 p.m. and so 
F 
>- ~.long as he got this amount it was immaterial for him whether the 
r · amount was paid in a lump sum or by one cheque or more than one 
' 
cheque and who the makers of the cheques were. It is not unusual to 
come across cases where a tenant pays the rent not by a cheque drawn 
by himself but by a cheque drawn by some other concern in which he 
has an interest such as a partnership concern, a limited company etc. It G

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