MANI SUBRAT JAIN versus RAJA RAM VOHRA

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 19-11-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
' 
MANI SUBRAT JAJN 
v. 
RAJA RAM VOHRA 
November 19, 1979 
141 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK. JJ.] 
8 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Section 2(1), 3,-"Tenant" ...... 
Meaninc of-Scope of. 
The appellant, an Advocate, tenanted aJ building belonging to the respondent. 
The i-espondent sued the oppellant for possession Of the premi!es and by ij 
compromise, the Appellant •greed to vacate the premises by a certain date. . A 
C 
decree in terms thereof was passed. Then the Act came into being which by 
extension Of its opemtion applied to Chandigarh with effect from 4-11-1972. 
·It was contended that (i) had the decree been passed but a few days later, 
the Act would have admittedly interdicted the eviction because of Section 13 
thereof; and had the decree been made and executed a day before the extension 
of the Act, the years of Jitigative procrastination of eviction might have been 
D 
impossible. The salvation of the appellant is certain if he be a '1enant" within 
the meaning of the Act and his eviction is certain if the definition of tenant 
doea not cover him in its amplitude and 
(ii)_ tb&t the effect of compromise 
decree is that' the tenancy of the appellant has been terminated. 
Accepting the appeal, 
HELD : An adTocate, under this Act, enjoys special protection. It is too 
platitudinous to preach and too entrenched to shake the proposition that rent 
control legislation in a country of terrible accommodation shortage is a beneficial 
measure whose construction must be liberal enough to fulfil the statutory purpose 
and not frustrate it. So construed, the benefit of interpretative doubt belongs 
to the potential evictee unless the language is plain and provides for eviction. 
That intendment must, by interpretation, be effectuated. This is the essence Of 
'"'1t control jurisprudence. [143 E-GJ 
· 
The expression 'tenant includes a 'tenant' continuing in possession after the 
termination of the tenancy in his favour'. It thus fucludes, by express provision, 
a quondam tenant whose nexus with "the property is continuance in pmsession. 
The fact that a decree or any other process extingnishes the tenancy under the 
general law of real property does not terminate the status of a t~nant under 
the Act having regard to the carefully drawn inclusive clause. Subudhi"s case 
[1968) 2 S.C.R. 559 related to a statute wh<ll"e the definition in s. 2(5) of that 
Act expressly included "any person against whom a suit for ejectment is pending 
in a court of competent jurisdiction" and more pertinent to the point specially 
excluded "a person against whom a decreei or order for eviction has- been made 
by such a court." [144 E-G] 
(ii) The text, reinforced by the context, especially of section 13, convincingly 
includes ex·tenants against whom decrees for eviction might have been passed. 
F 
G. 
R 
T 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 2 s.c.R·. 
whether on compromise or otherwise.. Nobody has a case that the appellant is: 
not continuously in possession. The conclusion is inevitable that he remains a. 
tenant and enjoys immunity under section 13 ( 1) of the Act. 
The execu·tion 
proceedings must therefore fall, because the statutory road-block cannot be 
remo¥ed. [A conffict is best resolved by the parties as both sides in the present 
case have produced an enlightened settlement by an agreement to sell the pro-
perty in dispute by the rei;pondent to the appellant.) [144 G-Hl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 818 of 1978 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order 
dated 
10-4-1978 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chi) Revision 
No. 458 of 1978 (0 & H) 
c 
G. L. Sanghi, B. Datta, K. K. Manchanda and Ishwar Chand lain 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
-
T 
for the Appellant. 
P. Govindan Nair and N. Sudhakaran for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The Holmesian homily that the life of the Jaw 
is not logic but experience directs our humane attention, in this appeal 
against an order ill execution for evictiO)l of an advocate in] Chandigarh, 
affirmed by court after court, to a reading of the textual definiton of 
'tenant' [s.2 (i)] in the context of the broad embargo on ejectment of 
urban dwellings in s. 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act). 
Chandigarh, a blossom in the desert, has served as the capital of 
two States; and, with explosive expansion, thanks to the marvellous 
human resources of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.