KAMALA BAKSHI versus KHAIRATI LAL

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 30-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--· 
KAMALA BAKSHI 
A 
v. 
KHAIRATI LAL 
MARCH 30, 2000 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 14( 1 )( a)-Arrears of rent-Ap-
pellant' s father entered into an agreement in 1960with respondent terming the 
relationship of landlord-tenant as that of employer-employee-Arrangement 
failed-Eviction suit dismissed by Trial Court holding respondent to be a tenant 
and not a licensee-High Court confirmed order in 199lenhancing rent pay-
able-Appellant sent notice for payment of an-ears of rent from 1960 to 1992-
Arrears paid for 3 years period prior to 1992-Eviction suit dismissed by Trial 
Court and High Court as claim for arrears was time barred-On appeal Held, 
no entitlement to receive arrears of rent beyond period of 3 years-Declaration 
of Court relates back to date on which parties entered into agreement camou-
flaging landlord-tenant relationship, but bar of limitation would apply-limi-
tation Act, 1963-Article 52. 
Appellant's father, landlord, allowed the respondent to occupy the 
suit premises as the manager of his business, after an agreement between 
them in 1960. The arrangement was entered into between them stating the 
relationship as that of employer-employee and not landlord-tenant. A suit 
for eviction was filed against the respondent as this arrangement failed. 
High Court finally decided the matter in 1991, holding the respondent to be 
a tenant, enhancing the rent payable. 
Appellant claimed title of the suit premises after death of her father 
on the basis of a family settlement and sent a notice claiming arrears of 
rent from 1960 to 1992. Respondent only paid arrears for period of three 
years prior to 1992. An eviction suit was filed under Section 14(1)(a) of 
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which was dismissed by Trial Court and 
High Court as the claim was time barred. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contended before this Court that the claim was not 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
time barred, as all the legally payable rent could only be claimed after the 
H 
773 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
judgment of the High Court in 1991 and never before. 
The respondent contended before this Court that claim for recovery 
of arrears of rent, which were not paid, was barred by limitation. 
..;-
B 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
r 
HELD : 1. Secti.on 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 
postulates making an order of eviction by any Court/Controller in favour 
of the landlord and against a tenant for non-payment of arrears of rent 
legally recoverable within two months of the service of notice of demand, 
c 
claiming the arrears of rent, on the tenant by the landlord. If the claim for 
recovery of arrears of rent is not enforceable in a court of law for having 
become barred by limitation, the amount ceases to be 'legally recoverable'. 
The appellant will be entitled to recover only that much of the arrears of 
rent for which she can sue in a court of law, as for recovery of arrears of 
rent Article 52 of the Indian Limitation Act prescribes a period of three 
D 
years from the date the arrears become due. [777-F-H] 
2. A distinction must be drawn between cases in which by virtue of an 
order of the court a right accrues to a party to the lis, and cases in which 
the court merely lays bare the truth well within the knowledge of the 
E 
parties. Parties in this case had actually entered into a transaction of 
tenancy but camouflaged the relationship of landlord-tenant by executing a 
document purporting to create a relationship of employer and employee 
and in the litigation that ensued between them. The court discerned the 
truth and declared the real position. Such a declaration by the Court 
relates back to the date on which the parties entered into the arrangement/ 
F 
agreement under which the suit premises was put in possession of the 
respondent. Cause of action had accrued to the appellant's father, in the 
earlier round of litigation, to claim rent from inception of tenancy on the 
basis of the true state of affairs, which were camouflaged but discovered 
and declared by the court. Provisions of the Limitation Act would apply if 
G 
arrears of rent were claimed later on. [779-G-H; 780-A-D] 
Rangayya Appa Rao v. Bobba Sriramulu & Ors., 27 ILR Madras 143; 
Ram Sarup & Am: v. Smt. Raj Dulari, AIR 1974 Delhi 23; MaimoonaKhatun 
.... 
& Am: v. State of U.P. & Am:, [1980] 3 SCR 676, distinguished. 
-
H 
CI

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