M/S. KARTA RAM RAMESHWAR DASS versus RAM BILAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 23-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M/S. KARTA RAM RAMESHWAR DASS 
A 
v. 
RAM BILAS AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 23, 2005 
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Rent and Eviction: 
Suit of partition of a shop by the co-owners, portion of which occupied 
by the tenant-Objection against partition by tenant-Sustainability of-Held: C 
Not sustainable-Tenant cannot object to partition unless he shows that same 
was not bona fide and was intended to overcome the rigours of rent control 
laws which protected eviction of tenants. 
Partition of a shop by the co-owners, portion of which occupied by the D 
tenant-High court ordering recovery of possession from the tenant of the 
portion which fell to the share of plaintiff-Correctness of-Held: Not correct 
as tenant can be evicted only in accordance with law under the provisions of 
rent control legislation-Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1973. 
The shop in question was originally owned by one R. On his death, E 
his two sons plaintiff and C inherited the same. C rented out the front 
portion of the shop with the consent of plaintiff. On the death of C, h'is 
heirs sold half share in the shop. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a suit for 
partition of his half share in the shop. Trial Court passed a preliminary 
decree in favour of plaintiff and appointed a local commissioner to effect F 
partition. His report stated that the division of shop must be done 
horizontally i.e. in such a way that one party would get the front portion 
opening in the Mandi and other would get its back portion. Plaintiff raised 
objection to the report stating that the shop should have been partitioned 
longitudinally by constructing a wall through and through. Appellant- G 
tenant raised objection that by erecting a wall, his tenanted premises would 
be divided into 2 portions which would amount to evicting him without 
following due process of rent law. 
Trial Court passed final decree directing partition of the shop 
415 
H 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A longitudinally by erecting middle wall through and through but allowing 
tenant to continue to occupy the shop let out to him. Appellate Court 
upheld the order of trial court. On appeal, High Court upheld the decree 
in favour of plaintiff, however directed the tenant to be evicted from that 
portion of tenanted premises which had fallen to the share of plaintiff. 
B Hence these appeals. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In a suit for partition filed by one co-sharer against 
another if a tenant is made party, he can object to the claim for partition 
if it is shown that the same was not bona fide and made with an oblique 
C motive to overcome the rigors of rent control laws which protected eviction 
of tenant except on grounds set-out in the relevant statute. After a partition 
is effected or a decree for partition is passed, it would be open to the co-
sharers to evict a tenant from that portion -0f tenanted premises which 
had fallen i11 their respective shares by filing separate proceedings .for 
D eviction under rent control laws on the grounds enumerated thereunder. 
1420-8-C) 
1.2. The tenant failed to prove that the claim for partition was not 
bona fide. Therefore, final decree in the suit for partition .has been rightly 
confirmed by the High Court but it was not justified in reversing decree 
E of the trial court, which directed that the possession of the tenant could 
not be disturbed unless and until proceeding is initiated for its eviction 
under the Act, and in ordering for recovery of possession from the tenar.t 
of that portion of the tenanted premises which had· fallen to the share of 
the plaintiff. The trial court was quite justified in directing that possession 
F of the tenant would not ~be disturbed and it can be evicted only in 
accordance with law by taking steps for eviction under the provisions of 
rent control legislation upon the grounds thereunder. [420-D-E) 
G 
H 
Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd Choudhari v. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate, AIR 
(1997) Supreme Court 1998, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6986-6987 
of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.2002 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. Nos. 613 and 837 of 1981. 
t' 
KARTARAM RAMESHWAR DASSv. RAMBILAS [B.N.AGRAWAL, J.)417 
... 
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Aditya Kumar Chaudhary and Ugra Shankar Prasad A 
for the Appellants. 
Amrit Lal Jain, D.D. Gupta, Pankaj Jain, P.N. Puri and Ms. Abha R. 
Sharma (NP) for the Respondents. 
The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.