KARTAR SINGH versus CHAMAN LAL & OTHERS

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 14-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
... 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
KARTAR SINGH 
v, 
CHAMAN LAL & OTHERS 
March 14, 1969 
[J.C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1958 s. 14(1)(h)-Premises let for 
residence..cum-business to tenant1 predecessor-in-interest 
Tenant acquir-
ing residetdial premises-Tenant establishes same business whether liable 
to be evicted. 
Landlord and Tenant-Premises let for residence-cum...busi'ness to pre-
<lecessor-in-interest of tenant-Tenant acquires residential premises-Esta-
blishes business after a break-If liable to be evicted. 
The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents who was a 
practising 
advocate1 took on rent certain premises for residence. He could with the 
written consent of the appellant-landlord set up his professional office also 
there. After the death of their predecessor-in-interest the respondents lived 
in the premises and sometimes later two of the respondents qualified as 
law)'ers and started having an office in the premises. The appellant filed 
a suit for the·1 respondents' eviction on the ground that the respondents badi 
acquired a "suitable residence" by building a large residential house and 
were liable to be ejected under s. 13 ( 1) (h) of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent 
Control Act, 1952. During the pendency of the suit the Delhi Rent Con-
trol Act, 1958 came into force and u,nder s. 14(1) (h) of the Act, the word. 
"suitable" was omitted. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding 
that 
since the premises had been let out to their predecessor-in-interest not for· 
residential purpose alone but also for business purposes, no eviction could. 
bo ordered under the provisions of s. 13(l)(h) of the old Act ors, 14(1} 
(hJ of the new Act. The first appellate Court, and the High Court in 
revision affirmed the order of the trial Court. Dismissing the appeal this 
Court, 
HELD : Assuming, that s. 14(1) (h) of the new Act, applied, having 
regard to its language, the original tenant in the present case was one who 
was in occupation of premises which were used for a composite purpose 
namely, residence and profession. 
There could, therefore, be no evictio~ 
merely by acquisition of vacant possession of a residence by such a tenant 
and tho position would be the same with regard to his heirs and legal re-
presentatives, the present respondents. Section 14 (I )(h) can apply only 
where a tenant is in occupation of premises which are only residential: 
then alone he would have to go if he acquires or has residential accommo: 
dation of his own. [14 Fl 
The decision di this Court in Dr. Gopal Das Verma v. Dr. s. K. 
Bhardwaj [19621 2 S.C.R. 678 applied apprositely to this case. The test of 
dominant intention with regard to the use of the premises was not applied 
in Dr. Gopal Das Verma's case. [13 F-G; !SA] 
· 
In view of the finding of the courts below that the premises had been 
let to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents for reside.nce-cum-
profession, the submi'ision that the permission was personal to the prede-
cessor-in-interest of the respondent, which came to an end on his death 
could not be entertained. [15 El 
Ll2Sup.CJ/69-2 
iO 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 1 S.CR 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 661 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order d.1ted 
December 8, 1964 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at 
Delhi in Civil Revision No. 92-D of 1962. 
S. C. 
Manchanda, S. K. 
Mehta, and K. L. Mehta, for the 
appellant. 
Bishan Narain, I. S. Sawhney and M. R. Chhabra, fer the 
respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment 
of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench at New Delhi) dismissing 
a petition for revision directed against the concurrent judgments 
of the courts below dismissing the action for eviction filed by the 
appellant against the respondents from a premises on Ajmal Khan 
Road, Karol Bflgh, New Delhi. 
The facts may be succinctly stated. By means of a rent deed 
dated February 13, 1950 the appellant, who is the owner of the 
suit premises inducted as a tenant Labha Mal Arora, now de-
ceased, who was a practising Advocate. Clauses (2) and (6) of 
the rent deed were in the following terms :-
"2. TI1at the tenan1 agrees to use the property for his 
residence. 
6. That the tenant shall not assign or sublet the 
above said property or any part thereof without the 
written consent of the landlord, or utilise the Property 
for any purpose other
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.