KANTA GOEL versus B. P. PATHAK & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 412 · Decided: 01-04-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, R.S. SARKARIA, JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

412 
KANTA GOEL 
v. 
B. P. PATHAK & ORS. 
April 1, 1977 
B 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. SARKARJA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Delhi Rent Control A.ct 19.58-Sec. 2(c)(l)-14--Go.,..·1rnment officer required 
to vacate Government premistJ--Whether can obtain possession of two dwelling 
house3 let out to 1wo different tenant:r-Whether a co-owner can file a suit to 
evict a tenant-Definition of a landlord. 
The respondent no. 1 is an Under Secretary in the Central Government. He 
WM in occupation of residential premises allotted to him by the Central Govern-
ment and was required by the Government order to vacate such residential acco-
mmodation on the ground that he owned in Delhi a residential accommodation 
in his own name at Shakti Nagar. The Shakti Nagar House is a two storeyed 
house. 'fhe first floor was let out to the appel1ant-tenant and the ground floor 
to another tenant. 
Relying on section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 
1958, the respondent evicted the tenant on the ground floor. Thereafter, the 
re8pondent sought eviction of the appellant on the same ground. 'fhe Controller 
directed eviction refusing leave to the tenant to contest the 
application for 
eviction. 
The Revision Application filed by the appellant before the High Court 
failed. 
In appeal by special leave the appellant contended : 
(1) In view of the eviction of the tenant on the ground floor the right of 
the respondent to evict the tenant under s. 14A ·was exhausted. 
(2) The respondent no. l claims to be a legatee of the deceased landlord 
uuder a Wi11. 
He has not got the \Vill probated. 
(3) Respondent no. 1 is only one of the co-o,vners and, therefore, cannot 
file the application for eviction. 
( 4) The respondent no. 1 has not let out the premises to the appellant and 
the premises does not stand in the name of the respondent no. 1. 
At the hearing, the parties settled their dispute by agreeing that the appellant 
would vacate the first floor premises consisting of 4 rooms and shift to the 
ground floor and respondent no. 1 would be handed over the possession of the 
first :floor. The parties also agreed to certain adjustment in the rent. 
Disposing of the appeal in terms of the compromise the Court observed : 
(1) The landlord cannot use the same weapon of s. 14A in getting two 
dwelling houses vacated. It is contrary to the intendment of 
~. 14A. The 
object of s. 14A is fulfilled once the landlord recovers immediate possession of 
his premises from one of his tenants. The right is exhausted thereby and is not 
available for continual applications for eviction against all other tenants hold-
ing under him. 
This is made clear by the proviso to s. 14A(l) which makes 
plain that the section shall not be construed as conferring a right on a landlord 
owning two or more dwelling houses to recover possession of more than one 
dwelling house. Of course, it gives choice to the landlord to indicate the parti-
cular house among a plurality ov.rncd by him, the 
possession 
of which 
he 
intends to recover. [417 A-D] 
(2) A co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as 
any sole 
owner of the property. He owns every part of the composite property along 
with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner. The absence of 
other co-owners on record cannot disentitle the first respondent from suing for 
eviction. From the definitien of landlord in s. 2(c) and tenant in s. 2(1) when 
read in the context of the Rent Control Law is the simple sense of the situation 
is that there should be a building which is let. There must be a landlord who 
KANTA GOEL v. B. P. PATHAK (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
413 
collects rent and a· tenant \\tho pays it to the one whom he recognises ~ land-
A 
lord. 
The complications of estoppel or the concepts of the Transfer of Property 
Act need not necessarily or inflexibly be imported in the proceedings under the 
Rent Control Law, tried by special Tribunals under a special statute. 
The Court 
left open the question if some co-owner seek eviction of a tenant 
and 
others 
i _ 
oppose it whether such application would be maintainable. 
(416 C-E) 
 
, 
ClvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 764 of 1977. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 21st January 1977 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision No. 
654 of 1976). 
F. S. Nariman, D. P. Mukherjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the 
appellant 
Prem Malhotra, for respondent No. 1 
The Judgment of the Court was d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.