JAGAN NATH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. versus CHANDER BHAN AND 0THERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 325 · Decided: 11-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

•. 
JAGAN NA1H (DECEASED) 1HROUGH L.Rs. 
v. 
CHANDER BHAN AND 01HERS 
' 
MAY 11, 1988 
[SABYASACHJ,MUKHARJI AND's. NATARAJAN, JJ.J 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14(l)(a), (b), (2) and 
15-Tenant-Eviction of-On ground of, subletting/Parting with 
possession-User of Premises by anot~er person is not parting with 
possession. 
The respondent-landlord had filed a petition against the 
appellant-tenant under section 14(l)(a) and 14(l)(h) of the Delhi Rent 
Control Act, 1958 for eviction from a residential-cum-commercial pre-
mises, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant had sublet, assigned 
or otherwise parted with possession of the premises to his sons who were 
running their parlne.rship business in the name of Bindra Tent House 
with which the tenant had'no concern. The tenant contested the petition 
on the ground that he was in exclusive possession of the premises and 
was carrying on his business therein with the help of his sons who were 
. members of his Joint Hindu Family. 
In support of his plea that the tenant had parted with possession, 
the landlord had produced documentary evidence which included copy 
of a statem~nt made by the tenant before the Income Tax Officer, which 
indicated that the tenant had sold his proprietary business to his sons. 
The Additiona~ Rent Controller held that there was no su,bletting 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
by the ten;>nt, but he had unlawfully parted with the possession of the 
F 
premises in favour of his sons and as such was liable to be evkted. 
During the peudency of the appeal the tenant sought permission 
under Order 6 Role 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend his 
written statement ti) state that the property was taken o'l rent by M/s 
Bindra Tent House. The Tribunal did not permit this belated amend-
G 
ment as this would have introduced an entirely new case. On merits, the 
Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the tenant. The High Court did not 
find any substantial question of law in the tenant's second appeal and 
dismissed the same. 
Allowing the appeal, it was, 
H 
325 
A 
B 
c 
326 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
HELD: (I) The only ground perhaps upon which the landlord 
was seeking eviction was parting with possession. It is well-settled that 
parting with possession meant giving possession to persons other than 
those to whom possession had been given by the lease and th1' parting 
with possession must have been by the tenant. User by other 11erson is 
not parting with possession so long as the tenant retains the legal posses-
sion himself, or in other words, there must be vesting of possession by 
the tenant in another person by divesting himselfnot only of physical 
possession but also of the right of possession. So long as the tenant 
retains the right to possession there is no parting with possession in 
terms of clause (b) of section 14(1) of the Act. [329G-H; 330A] 
(2) Even though the father had retired from business and fthe sons 
had been looking after the business in the facts of this case, it cannot be 
said that the father had divested himself of the legal right to be in 
possession. [330B] 
(3) In the instant case, if the father was carrying on the business 
D 
with his sons and the family was a joint family, it is difficult to p1•esume 
that the father had parted with possession legally to attract the mischief 
of section 14(l)(b) of the Act. [330D-E] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
( 4) In these days of acute shortage of accommodation both for 
living and for vocation, one has to take the reality with a piimch of 
salt and the manner in which the original tenant has conducted himself 
in shilling his defence would not disentjtle him to the benefit of the 
law. [330G] 
Subashini Mojumdar v. Krishna Prasad Mahatoo, A.I.R. 1956 
Assam 79; Mis Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s 
Ladha Ram and Co., [1977] I SCR 728 and Smt. Krishnawati v. Shri 
Hans Raj, [1974] 1SCC289, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1127 
of 1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.84 of the Delhi High 
Court in S.A.O. No. 40 of 1984. , 
Rajinder Sachhar and Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Appellants. 
A.K. Ganguli and E.M.S. Anam for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.,,
JAGAN NATH v. CHANDER BHAN [MUKHARJI, J.[ 
327 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is 
directed against the judgment and order of the High Court _of Delhi 
dated 29th August, 1984. One Jagan Nath, since deceased, was the 
origin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.