OM PARKASH & ORS. versus R.K. LAKRA

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 22-07-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
OM PARKASH & ORS. 
v. 
R.K. LAKRA 
JULY 22, 1988 
[K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.J 
Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966: 
Section 11-W asidar in respect of land-Sub-leased-On expiry of sub-
lease whether Wasidar entitled to evict tenant for bona fide occupation. 
The land in question was granted to one A by the Government of 
Kashmir and as per the practice prevailing there, he was shown as 
W asidar in respect of the said land. On his death, his son inherited the 
leasehold rights. On the death of the son, his widow inherited the same. 
The appellants are the heirs and legal representatives of the widow. 
A's son, during his lifetime, had granted a sub-lease of the said 
land to the Respondent's father. The widow of A's son instituted a suit 
for recovery of possession of the said land on the grounds that there was 
unlawful sub-letting by the sub-lessee, the land was required for occu-
pation hY her and her family, and that the period of sub-lease had 
expired. The Respondent· contended that the sub-lease was void ab 
initio. The Sub-Judge held that the sub-lease was valid and the grounds 
of bona fide requirement of the appellants' mother as well as unlawful 
sub-letting by the sub-lessee had heen established. On these findings the 
suit was decreed. 
On appeal, the Additional District Judge upheld the decision. In 
the second appeal before the High Court, it was contended that the 
transfer made was of a mere interest in the lease-hold and did not 
amount to a transfer of the land leased, <ts contemplated under Rule 35 
of the Wasidar Rules. Rejecting the contention, but without considering 
as to what would be the effect of the sub-lease being void, the High 
Court came to the conclusion that in view of the sub-lease being void, 
the suit filed by the appellant must be dismissed. This appeal, by special 
leave, is against the aforesaid decision. 
On behalf of the appellants, the contentions urged in the Courts 
below, were reiterated before this Court. The Respondent relied on 
Section 12-A of the Jammu Kashmir Land Grants Act, 1960 as 
amended in 1969 and contended that the sub-lease was admittedly 
556 
OM PARKASH v. R.K. LAKRA 
557 
granted without the permission of the Government and so the lease 
granted by the Government bad come to an end: the title of the appel-
lants to the said land bad extinguished and they were not entitled to sue 
for rcovery of possession of the said land. 
AUowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. Even assuming that the sub-lease granted was void, the 
result would be that the Respondent and his father would be persons 
without any legal interest in the said land. The appeUants being the 
lessees of the said land were suing on their own title and not relying on 
tl!ie sub-lease and hence they were entitled to ev.ict the Respondent who 
· had no title or interest in the said land. If a view is taken that the 
sub-lease was valid, inJhat event, as held by both the Courts ·below, 1i$ 
grounds for eViction set out in Section 11 ofthe Janitini & Kashmir 
Hiouses and Shops R~nt Control Act have been made out, the Respon-
dent ceased to be entitled to the protection of the said Act aiid was liable 
to be evicted as the tetjn of bis sob-Iea8e had expired. [559E-G] 
2. It was not eonfended by tlie Respoil'iient Iii ·any of tile Courts 
below that the title of the AppeUants and his predecessors-in-title to the 
said land under the lease granted by the Government had come to an 
end. Had the plea been taken earlier, it is possible that the Appellants 
might have pleaded facts to show that their lease had not come to an end 
A 
B 
(:. 
or that it had been renewed after .the sub-lease was granted. Hence, 
E 
allowing such a plea at this stage might cause prejudice to the 
Appellants. [560D-E] 
3. As regards the sub•lettiog by the Respondent and ·his fatlier 
and the bona fide requirement of ap~llants' motlier, these are ooth 
essentially issues of fact and have been decided in favour of the Appel-
F 
lants,' mother and their predecessors-in-title. Those findings do not 
,appear to have been seriously challenged before the High Court at all 
and hence there is no reason to go into the question ·as to whether those 
findings are correct, in this appeal. [561Bl 
CIVIL APPELLATE. JURlSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2821 
G 
of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.1986 of the Jammu and 
Kashmir High Court in 15 Civil ind Appeal of 1975. 
D.D. Thakur, E.C. Agarwa

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