LexM/S NOPANY INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. versus SANTOKH SINGH (HUF)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
M/S NOPANY INVESTMENTS (P) LTD.
v.
SANTOKH SINGH (HUF)
DECEMBER 10, 2007
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, .JJ.)
Hindu Law - Hindu undivided family - Eviction suit with
regard to joint family property- Suit at instance of junior member
claiming himself to be karta of HUF, when senior member of
c HUF alive - Maintainability of - Held: Senior member of HUF,
who was staying abroad permanently, was unable to handle joint
family property and, therefore, executed power of attorney in favour
of junior member - Moreso, there was no protest, and also junior
member was realizing rent from tenant - Thus, suit maintainable
D - Estoppel.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0 41 r 31 - Requirements
under - Compliance with, by first appellate court - Held: Findings
arrived at by first appellate court neither cryptic nor based on
E non-consideration of issues involved - It upheld findings of trial
court based on total consideration of material evidence - Thus,
High Court rightly concluded that first appellate court duly dealt
with all issues involved and re-appreciated evidence.
F
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - ss. 6A, 8 and 15 - Notice for
~
increase of rent without seeking leave of rent controller during
...
pendency of order u/s 15 to deposit rent - Permissibility of- Held:
Landlord can increase rent of suit premises by I 0% every three
years .after giving notice u/s 6A - Premises {vas let out for Rs
G 3,5001 pm -10% increase in rent brought the suit premises out of
the purview of the Act and thus, leave of rent controller was not
required and suit could be filed under the general law - Landlord
could seek enhancement of rent simultaneously or for post
termination of tenancy - On facts, at the time of filing suit, pending
H
28
-f.
_M/S NOPANYINVESTMENTS (P) LTD. v. SANTOKH
29
SINGH(HUF)
-~
eviction proceedings had already been withdrawn - Notice for A
increase of rent was earlier Jn date than notice to quit - Eviction
suit under general law is itself a notice to quit on· tenant - Thus,
no notice to quit was necessary u/s I 06 - Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 - s. I 06.
B
The respondent-HUF leased out the suit premises to the
i
appellant for certain period for Rs 3500/- pm. On expiry of the
lease, the respondent issued eviction notice. Subsequently, 'JS'
a junior member of the HUF, in the capacity of Karta of the
respondent-HUF, filed an eviction suit. The Additional Rent c
Controller directed the appellant to pay t~e rent. Thereafter,
section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act came into force and
'JS' issued notice to the appellant for enhancement of rent by
10 percent and also for termination of the tenancy. The
respondent sent another notice notifying that rent was enhanced D
by 10% and tenancy stood terminated. Thereafter, 'JS' withdrew
the eviction petition. Another notice was issued to the appellant
to vacate the suit property. Thereafter the respondent through
'JS' filed an eviction suit. The trial court decreed the suit. The
first appellate court and the High Court upheld the decree. Hence E
the present appeal.
The questions for consideration in the instant appeal were:
(1) whether 'JS' could file the suit for eviction, in the capacity
of the Karta of respondent-HUF, when an elder member of the
HUF was alive; (2) whether the High Court rightly concluded F
that the first appellate court duly dealt with all the issues involved
and re-appreciated evidence under 0.41 R.31 CPC; (3) whether
the contractual tenancy between the landlord and tenant came
to an end merely by filing an eviction petition and whether the
G
landlord could seek enhancement of rent simultaneously or post
'
termination of tenancy; and ( 4) whether the landlord could issue
..- , -k
a notice under section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
for increase of rent without seeking leave of the rent controller
during the pendency of an order under Section 15 of the Act
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.
A directing the tenant to deposit rent on a month to month basis.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Considering the principles laid down in
Tribhovandas 's case that under the circumstances mentioned
B therein, a junior member of the joint hindu family could deal
with the joint family property as manager or act as the Karta of
the same, and Sunil Kumar's case that the father of a family, if
alive, and in his absence the senior member of the famiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.