KARUNA RAM MEDHI AND ORS. versus KAMAKHYA PRASAD BARUAH AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 519 · Decided: 02-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KARUNA RAM MEDlll AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
KAMAKHYA PRASAD BARUAH AND ANR. 
APRIL 2, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
B 
Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 : 
Section 3(d)-Pemzanent stmcture--Wlzat is-Held it must be con-
stmed as defined in Section 3(d)-What will be a pennanent stmcture for the C 
pw71ose of pmtection of Section 5 is a question off act-Question of nature 
of stmcture--Raised for the first time in Appeal before Supreme Cowt-Held 
not maintainable. 
Venkatlal G. Pittie & Anr. v. B1ight Bros. (Pvt.) Ltd., [1987] 3 SCR 593 
and Karam Singh Sobti & Anr. v. Slui Pratap Chand & Anr., [1964] 4 SCR D 
647, held inapplicable. 
Section 5( l)(a)-Tenant-Protection from eviction-Necessary condi-
J 
lions for-Lease agreement between respondent and appellant-Respondent 
const1ucted a house on demised land within five years from the date of 
lease--H ouse gutted in fire-Thereafter respondent reconstmcted the E 
house-Notice issued by appellant asking the respondent to vacate the 
land-Suit decreed by T1ial Cowt-Appellate Cowt confi1111ed the same-In 
Second Appeal High Cowt reversed the Decree and dismissed the suit-Ap-
peal before this Cowt-Held view taken by the High Cozut that on the 
destruction of the pemwnent strncture by accident the tenant was not disen-
titled to protection available under Section 5 was not vitiated by any enw of 
law. 
Refiquennessa v. Lal Bhadur Chetri (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., [1964] 6 
SCR 876 and Biswambhar Roy (dead) by Lis. v. Girindra Kumar Paul (dead) 
F 
by Lrs., AIR ~1966) SC 1908 and Dhananjay Singh v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra G 
& Ors., (1970) ILR Vol. 22, relied on. 
Bireswar Bane1jee v. Sudhir Rajan Bose, A.L.R. (1973) A&N 15, ap-
proved. 
Canara Bank v. Canara Sales Co1poration & Ors., [1987] 2 SCC 666; H 
519 
520 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A Shiromuni & Ors. v. Hem Kumar & Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 639 and Pramila 
Rani Nag v. Mohd. Mir Hussain & 01~·., C.A. No. 1209174 decided by 
Supreme Court on 17.1.1995, held inapplicable. 
B 
c 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2825 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.82 of the Assam High 
Court in S.A. No. 58 of 1976. 
Pravir Choudhary for the Appellant. 
S.A. Syed and S.K. Nandy for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Substitution allowed. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Full 
Bench of the High Court of Assam, made on 24.8.1982 in S.A. No. 58 of 
1976. 
The admitted facts are that the respondent .had entered into an 
E agreement of lease of land with the predecessor-in-title of the appellant on 
January 5, 1953 for a period of seven years on payment of premium of Rs. 
30/- p.a. The respondent constructed a house therein five years from the 
date of the lease. The house was gutted in a fire on April 4, 1958 and 
thereafter the respondent reconstructed the house. The appellant had 
F 
issued a notice on December 12, 1959 asking the respondent to vacate and 
land and deliver the possession on January 1, 1960. The respondent has 
resisted the contentions raised in the suit filed by the appellant for eject-
ment of the respondent from the demised property. The trial Court 
decreed the suit. On appeal, the Additional Direct Judge confirmed the 
same. In the second appeal, the Full Bench of the High Court reversed the 
G decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Thus this appeal by special 
leave. 
Shri Prabir Chowdhury, learned counsel for the appellants, with his 
painstaking preparation, has contended strenuou~fy that the High Court is 
H wrong irr coming to the conclusion that the respondent had constructed the 
-
KARUNARAMMEDHlv. K.P.BARUAH 
521 
house with permission of the predecessor of the appellant. The respondent A 
has not pleaded any acquiescence in that behalf. Unless the lease deed 
does contain any term for construction of the house on the non-responden-
tial premises of the land, the respondent is not entitled to the protection 
of Section 5 of the Act. Consequently, he is liable to ejectment under 
Section 11 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, B 
(for short, the 'Act'). The suit notice terminating the lease is valid in law. 
The question, therefore, is whether the view of the Full Bench of the 
High Court is vitiated by any error of law warranting interference? The 
High Court, after the elaborate consideration of the matter, has held that: 
Here the suit was filed on 21.1.60,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.