KAMLA DEVI versus LAXMI DEVI

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 12-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KAMLA DEVI 
v. 
LAXMI DEVI 
MAY 12, 2000 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; Sections 2(e),(i),(I) and 50. 
c 
Civil Court-Jurisdiction of-Landlord let out one big room to tenant-
An open plot of vacant land belonging to the landlord was located adjacent 
to the said big room-Tenant constructed a latrine unauthorised?' on that 
plot of /and-landlord filed suit for injunction directing the tenant to demolish 
the structure-Subsequently, the parties entered into a compromise under 
D which the plot was let out to the tenant on a monthly rent-Later on landlord 
terminated the said tenancy and filed suit for recovery of possession of the 
plot of /and-High Court dismissed the suit holding that the plot was covered 
by the term 'premises' defined under S.2(i) and, therefore, the suit was barred 
under S.50-Correctness of-Held: Open plot of land without any structure 
E is. not covered by the term 'premises '-It is immaterial even if the tenant 
raises a structure on the open plot of land before or after creation of tenancy 
since the structure does not belong to the landlord-Therefore, S.50 which 
bars jurisdiction of civil court is not applicable to such cases-hence, High 
Court erred in dismissing the landlord's suit as not maintainable-Landlord's 
suit decreed 
F 
Unauthorised construction-Tenant built a structure on the adjacent 
vacant land to his rented premises-Adjacent land also belonged to the 
landlord-Held: Such structure cannot be treated as part of the building 
already in occupation of the tenant. 
G 
Words and Phrase: 
"Premises"-Meaning of-In the context of S.2(i) of the Delhi Rent 
Control Act, 1958. 
The appellant-landlady let out the suit property (consisting of one big 
H 
330 
KAMLA DEVI v. LAXMI DEVI 
331 
room) to the respondent - tenant. The respondent had unauthorisedly A 
constructed a latrine on a vacant plot of land belonging to the appellant 
measuring 9'x7' adjacent to the suit property. The appellant ftled a suit for 
injunction directing the respondent to demolish the said construction. But 
the parties settled their dispute and filed a compromise under which the 
respondent became the tenant of the suit plot on a monthly rent and the suit B 
was dismissed as withdrawn. 
Subsequently, the appellant terminated the tenancy created under the 
said compromise and filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit plot by 
evicting the respondent. The suit was contested by the respondent on the sole 
ground that the suit plot was 'premises' within the meaning of the Section C 
2(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and, therefJlre, the suit was barred 
under Section SO of the Act. The trial court dismissed the suit and the 
appellant's first and second appeals were also dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that as per the terms of the 
compromise what was let out to the respondent was only a plot of land D 
measuring 9'x7'; that the appellant had no right, title or interest in the 
structure built on the land and she could not have let out the same and, 
therefore, Section SO of the Act was pot applicable. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. A combined reading of the definitions of "landlord", 
"tenant" and "premises" contained in Sections 2(e), (i) and (I) respectively 
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 shows that the term 'premises' implies 
the subject-matter of tenancy in respect of which there is jural relationship 
of landlord and tenant and in respect of which the quantum of rent is agreed 
to between them. [335-C) 
F 
1.2. When, in any case, the question arises whether an open plot of land 
or a plot of land with structures thereon, was let ont, the Court has to 
determine the same on the facts of that case. In deciding this question, it will 
be useful to bear in mind that if the plot with structure was let out it will fall G 
within the meaning of the term 'premises'; but if open plot of land without 
any structure was let out then it does not fall within the meaning of the term 
'premises.' It is immaterial whether the tenant raised structures before the 
creation of the tenancy or after he was let in as a tenant. In either case, the 
tenant alone will have the proprietary rights in the structure and not the 
landlord. (335-D-E) 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
2.1. In the instant case, the respondent raised the structure (latrin

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