MONHINDER KAUR versus KUSAM ANAND

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 28-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MONHINDER KAUR 
v. 
KUSAMANAND 
MARCH 28, 2000 
B 
[A.P. MISRA AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction : 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : 
C 
Residential premises-Used for non-residential purpose by person claim-
ing herself to be tenant alleged to have been inducted into the premises by 
power of attorney holder of land lady-Suit for eviction by land lady denying 
to have executed any such power of attorney-Held, defendant knew that the 
premises were residential-She wrote a letter to plaintiff for taking the premises 
D 
mi rent for residential purposes and without waiting for confi.nnation from 
plaint!ff entered into the premises and started nuuzing a school therein-No 
adverse inference can be drawn against plaintiff that she was withholding the 
power of attorney-Single Judge of High Court rightly decreed the suit-Order 
of Division Bench of High Court set aside and decree passed by Single Judge 
restored. 
E 
The plaintiff-appellant filed suit for eviction of the defendant-
respondent from the ground floor of a residential house and for mesne 
profits, on the ground that the defendant was a trespasser. It was the case 
of the plaintiff that earlier she had let out the premises to National Cadet 
F 
Corps (NCC). She filed an application under s.14(1)(a), (c) and (k) of the 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction. In the said proceedings one 'D', 
an employee of plaintiff's firm, was appointed as power of attorney to 
conduct the eviction proceedings. NCC ultimately vacated the premises 
on 31.8.1977. On 29.12.1977 when plaintiff's son visited the premises, he 
G 
H 
found that the defendant had entered into the premises. He requested the 
defendant to .remove her belongings, but she declined. He then issued a 
notice by telegram dated 31.12.1977 and 'lodged an FIR for criminal 
trespass. Meanwhile the defendant filed a civil suit in the Court of Senior 
Sub-Judge, Delhi for injunction and obtained an interim injunction. On 
receipt of the summons of the said suit the plaintiff filed the instant suit in 
the High Court. 
594 
MOHINDER KAUR v. KUSAM ANAND 
595 
The defendant contested the suit alleging that since the plaintiff 
resided and carried on business at Calcutta, she go~ in touch with 'D' who 
as a power of. attorney accepted her as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 
3000 with effect from 1.12.1977, subject to the confirmation by the plain-
tiff as he was not competent to let out the property. Meanwhile she 
requested 'D' to allow her to have her furnitUre/fixtures prepared in the 
verandah of the property to which he agreed. 
The Single Judge of the High Court decreed the suit holding that it 
was established that the property was in residential zone and the defend-
ant, inspite of stating in her letter dated 28.10.1977 that she required the 
premises for residential purposes, trespassed into the premises and started 
running a school therein without any written consent of, the plaintiff. The 
appeal filed by the defendant.~as alltiwed by the Division Bench holding 
that 'D' having been given power of attorney to conduct the eviction case 
against NCC, it was for the plaintiff to show that the said power did not 
include the authority to let out the suit premises by him and as the plaintiff 
did not produce the said power of attorney, inference would be drawn 
against her. The Court further held that the receipt of advance rent 
executed by 'D' would negate the plea that defendant occupied the premises 
as a trespasser. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the Division Bench of the 
lligh Court erred in not considering the vital document, the letter dated 
28.10.1977 written by the respondent requesting the appellant to consider 
her offer, and the fact that the plaintiff had specifically denied to have 
executed any power of attorney in favour of 'D' for managing the suit 
premises and she _had stated that the she did not have the copy of the power 
of attorney executed in his favour for conducting the eviction case against 
NCC. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HELD : 1.1. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the 
G 
plaintiff had let out the suit premises to the defendant in December, 1977 
for running the school or that 'D' had any power of attorney to let out the 
said premises. [603-H] 
1.2. The letter dated 28.10.1977 written by the defendant-tenant to 
the plaintiff specifically negates her contention tha

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