LALA RAGHURAJ SWARUP (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus HARDWARL LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 672 · Decided: 21-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
LALA RAGHURAJ SWARUP (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
v. 
HARDWARl LAL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 21. 1991 
[DR. T.K. THOMMEN AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939: Ss. 3(22), 3(23), 31, 39, 
45, 47, 48, 175, 180/Notification dated 23.1.1953. 
Nnn:occupancy tenants-Grant of suh-lease to sub-tenant-Sur-
e render of holding to land /:older before expiry of sub-lease-Notice uf 
<'J<'clment by land holder to sub-tenant-Interest of sub-tenant-
Whether extinguishes on exti1iction of tenants' interest-Status of sub-
1rnant-Whether he holds land otherwise than under law--Suit for 
<'/l't"tment of sub-tenant after expiry of sub-lease-Maintainability. 
D 
The defendant-appellant was a sub-tenant in terms of a sub-lease 
granted to him by the non-occupancy tenants for a period of five years 
from l.l.1950 expiring on 31.12.1954 in respect of the land in dispute of 
which the plaintiff-respondent was the proprietor. On 14.9.1954 the 
original tenants surrendered their interests in the holding to the 
proprietor who issued a notice dated 2.11.1954 to the sub-tenant 
E demanding vacant possession of the land by 31.12.1954, the a~reed date 
of expiry of the sub-lease, and, since the latter failed to comply with the 
notice, the proprlttnr filed a suit for ejectment under s. 180 of the 
Lnited Provinces Tenancy Act, 193,. 
The Trial Conrt as well as the first appellate court decided all the 
F 
issues in favour of the plaintiff, but dismissed the suit as not maintain· 
able holding that the defendant being a sub-tenant was liable to be 
ejected only in terms of s. 175 and not under s. 180 of the Act, and had 
the suit been brought under s. 175 it would have been stayed in terms of 
the Government Notification dated 23.1.1953. 
G 
In the second appeal by the plaintiff the High Court held that the 
suit was rightly brought under s. 180 and, finding the other issues in 
favour of the plaintiff, it decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendant 
filed the appeal by special leave to this Court. 
It was contended on behalf of the defendant-appellant that his 
H interest in the land was not extinguished on the extinction of the 
072 
t
.. 
l 
) 
SWARUP '· HARDWARI LAL 
673 
tenants' interest but continued even after termination of the period of 
his sub-lease notwithstanding the plaintiffs' notice; that alth_ough the 
term of lease had expired, he was not in unlawful or unauthorised 
occupation but was in possession of the land by reason of bis being a 
lessee, and, therefore, s. 175 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, was 
applicable; and that be ceased to be a sub-tenant and was elevated to 
the position of a tenant on the extinction of the interests of the tenants 
on their surrender of the holding. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: (By the Court-Dr. T.K. Thommen & R.M. Sahai, JJ.) 
(1) The interest of a non-occupancy sub-tenant, is liable to be ext-
inguished consequent on the extin;:!lon of the interests of the non-
occupancy tenant, and he enjoys a legal right for a limited period in 
terms of the statute. 
(2) A person who continues to remain in occupation of the laud 
even after the expiry ·or the period of his lease, and despite the land-
lords' notice to quit the permises, can no longer be regarded as a 
tenant as referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of s. 175 of the United 
Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
(3) The persons who are not, or are no longer, tenants at the 
time of the suit, and liable to ejectment, have to be proceeded against 
E 
under s. 180 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939. 
Per Dr. Thommen, J. 
1.1 The extinguishment of the interest of a non-occupancy tenant 
would, as envisaged by s. 47(1) of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 
F 
1939, extinguish the interest of his sub-tenant except as otherwise pro-
vided in sub-ss. (3) and (4). [685A-B] 
1.2 Notwithstanding the extinction of the interest of the tenant by 
reason of his surrender or any other reaSon mentioned under sub~ 
section (4) of s. 47, a sub-tenant whose sub-tenancy had not expired, was 
G 
protected for the remainder of the term of the sub-lease or for 5 years, 
whichever period be the shorter, but subject to the requirement of 
sub-section (S) about rent. [681G-H] 
2.1 In the instant case, the interests of the tenants had become 
extinguished in terms of clause (c) of s. 45 of the United Provinces 
H 
674 
SL:PREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Tenancy Act by reason of-suneilder of their interests in the holding on 
14.9
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.