KAILASH CHAND AND ANR. versus DHARAM DASS

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 1182 · Decided: 04-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KAILASH CHAND AND ANR. 
v. 
DHARAM DASS 
MAY 4, 2005 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., Y.K. SABHARWAL AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
c 
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987: 
Section 14(3)(a)(i), third proviso-Application and interpretation of~ 
Held: Proviso is applicable when eviction order is passed under clause (a) or 
(b) and landlord obtains possession pursuant to that order-Proviso does not 
restrict right of landlord to be exercised only once in life time-It cannot 
mean that if requirement changes or new requirement unrelated to previous 
D one comes into existence landlord would yet be denied relief under section-
On facts, by way of compromise, exchange of accommodation, landlord in 
possession of another residential building without intervention of court-
Another eviction petition on ground of bonafide requirement-Held: Since 
parties entered into compromise, no eviction order passed-Landlords did not 
E obtain possession of the building but tenant shifted from one part to another 
part of the same building-Tenant did not 'vacate' the building-Hence, third 
proviso inapplicable and landlord entitled to relief of eviction-Also first and 
second proviso inapplicable-Case of bonafide requirement under section 
I 4(3)(a)(i) made out. 
F 
Section I 4(3)(a)(i), .first and second proviso-Application of, when 
attracted-Discussed 
Interpretation of Statutes: Statutory provisions-Interpretation-Scope 
of-Held: Court is to interpret law with pragmatism and consistently with the 
G demands of varying situation-Construction should be meaningful-legislative 
intent is to be found out and effectuated-It cannot be so interpreted as would 
cause oppression or be unjust. 
Rent Control legislation: Aim and purpose of-Discussed 
H 
Words and Phrases : 
1182 
;-
' 
. ..._ 
.... 
KAILASH CHAND v. DHARAM DASS 
1183 
Vacate '-Meaning of 
'His own occupation' and 'sufficient cause '-Meaning of in the context 
of Section 14(3)(a)(i)' Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987: 
A 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was when 
eviction order was passed in respect of first floor of the premises and B 
during pendency of appeal by tenant, by compromise landlord came into 
possession of first floor but in lieu thereof inducted tenant into ground 
floor of same building without intervention of the Court, whether third 
proviso to section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control 
Act, 1987 would be attracted and landlord would not be entitled to relief c 
of evition. 
Both, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, had directed 
tenant to be evicted. High Court relying on two judge Bench decision of 
this Court in Molar Mal's case held that the landlords had admittedly 
obtained the possession of another building on the same ground of bona 
fide requirement for his own occupation under section 14(3)(a)(i) of the D 
Act and as against this very tenant, and as such third proviso to section 
14(3)(a)(i) was attracted and the eviction petition by landlords was not 
maintainable. Hence the present appeal. 
Molar Mal's case being two Judge Bench decision of this Court, E 
matter was referred to three Judge Bench of this Court for reconsideration 
of Molar Mal's case. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The third proviso to section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Himachal 
Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 has no application to the facts of F 
the instant case and the landlords are entitled to relief of eviction. The 
first and the second proviso also have no application. Their case of 
requirement within the meaning of Section 14(3)(a)(i) is fully made out. 
11198-GI 
2.1. The third proviso would apply when an order for eviction has 
been passed under clause (a) or (b) and possession is obtained by the 
G 
L 
landlord pursuant to that order. In the instant case, the parties entered 
... 
into a compromise and as such the Appellate Authority had no occasion 
to pass eviction order. Further, by virtue of settlement arrived at between 
the parties, the landlords did not obtain possession of the building; the H 
f ' 
;r, 
1184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
J),, 
[2005) 3 S.C.R. 
A tenant shifted from one part of the building to an6ther part of the same 
• 
building. The tenant did not 'vacate' the buildl~g. 'Vacate', normally, 
l 
'· 
means to go away, to leave'. The landlord Cl!f!. be said to have obtained 
possession of any building if the tenant has correspondingly vacated such 
build

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