KUSH SAHGAL AND ORS. versus M.C. MITTER AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 28-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
KUSH SAHGAL AND ORS. 
v. 
M.C. MITIBR1AND ORS. 
MARCH 28, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972/United Pmvinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947-
Section 43(2)(rr)/43(2) (r)-Applicability of-On grounds of bonafide require-
ment pennission granted under section 3 of the old Act to file suit for eviction-
Tlzese grounds covered by grounds under section 21((1) & (2) of the new Act-
Then prescribed authority does not require to be satisfied afresh of existence of 
those gmunds-Furthe1; section 43(2)(rr) is attracted if the bonafide require-
ment of residential building is not for business purposes-On fact, pennission 
obtained by Landlady on ground of bonafide requirement of shifting nursing ,. 
home to residential p01tion in occupation of tenant-Held, application not 
maintainable. 
Statutory /nte1pretation : 
Proviso-Construction of-Enacting part to be construed to make excep-
tion carved out by proviso necessary and not render it redundant. 
Appellant-landlady filed an application under the United Provinces 
(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for permission to file 
eviction suit against the tenant on the ground ofbonafide requirement. Suit 
was instituted on the basis of the permission granted and was withdrawn 
without liberty to file fresh suit. Later, application under the U.P. Urban 
Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was filed for 
eviction. Both the Prescribed Authority and District Judge rejected the 
application. High Court allowed the petition. Hence, this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. When a suit is filed for the eviction of a tenant on the 
basis of the permission granted to the landlord by the District Magistrate 
H 
and if such suit is pending on the date on which the U.P. Urban Building 
648 
, 
• 
KUSH SAHGAL v. M.C. MITI'ER 
649 
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force, the 
A 
said suit is to be continued and concluded in accordance with the provisions 
of section 43(2)(r) of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent 
and Eviction Act, 1947. [ 660-E-F] 
2.1. The landlord may, even though a suit on the basis of the permis-
sion was filed or not filed, apply to the prescribed authority for the eviction 
of the tenant and the prescribed authority shall order eviction of the tenant 
from the accommodation in his tenancy if the conditions of section 43(2)(rr) 
are satisfied. If the permission granted under the old Act can be co-related 
or is referable to any ground specified in section 21(1) & (2) of the new Act 
it will not be necessary for the prescribed authority to be satisfied afresh of 
the existence of those ground. (661-H; 662-B] 
2.2. Section 43(2)(r) of the Act would apply to a situation where the 
ground on which permission was granted is not covered by section 21(1) 
and section 21(2) of the new Act and, therefore, in that situation, the suit if 
filed on the basis of that permission, has to be continued and concluded 
under the old Act which has been fictionally kept alive in spite of its repeal. 
Such a permission will not be executable under clause (rr ). On the contrary, 
if the ground on which permission was granted under section 3 is covered 
by any of the grounds mentioned in section 21(1) or (2) it will be executable 
under section 43(2)(rr). (662-C-E] 
3.1. If an application is made by the landlord for eviction of the 
tenant on the ground that the building in occupation of that tenant which 
was used exclusively for residential purposes was required for business 
purposes or for any other commercial activity, it would not be a ground 
within the meaning of third proviso to section 21(2) of the new Act for 
eviction of the tenant and the application under section 43(2)(rr) will ·not be 
entertained. (663-B-C] 
4.1. The normal function of a proviso to section 21 is to except 
something out of the enactment or to qualify something enacted therein 
which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. 
The enacting part has to be given such a construction which would make 
the exceptions carved out by the proviso necessary and a construction 
which would make the exception unnecessary and redundant should be 
avoided. (663-C-D] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
KedamaJh Jute Manufac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.