OM PRAKASH versus SURESH KUMAR

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 565 · Decided: 30-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
565
OM PRAKASH
v.
SURESH KUMAR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 833-834 of 2020)
JANUARY 30, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, HEMANT GUPTA AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Rent Control and Eviction:
Non-residential tenancy – Eviction proceedings –  Rent
Controller directed eviction holding that there was bonafide
requirement of suit premises for the purpose of reconstruction  –
Appellate court confirmed the order of Rent Controller  –  In revision,
the tenant urged that it was ready and willing to hand-over the
possession of suit premises subject to the land-lord agreeing to re-
induct him as tenant in equivalent area occupied by him  –  High
Court on the statement of the counsel for the land-lord that the
land-lord was not averse to the offer so made by the tenant, disposed
of the revision directing that the tenant would be re-inducted  –
Land-lord changed his advocate and filed review petition asserting
that he had never instructed his counsel to make any statement
regarding re-induction  – Review petition dismissed  –  Appeal to
Supreme Court  – Held: The statement regarding re-induction of the
tenant made by the counsel for land-lord before High Court is
unequivocal  –  Land-lord now cannot be allowed to resile from the
statement and is obliged to abide by the same  –  In order to provide
same area as in the old building, in the facts of the case, to do
complete justice, the Court reached an arrangement regarding the
area, location, floor and entrance to the tenanted premises after re-
induction  –  However, while doing so the tenant was deprived of
some area  –  Land-lord is directed to pay compensation/damages
for the said loss to the tenant.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. From the tenor of the statement of the counsel
of the Land-lord, made before the High Court on behalf of the
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 565
565
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
appellant (Land-lord), it is obvious that it is an unequivocal
statement made by the counsel engaged by the appellant (land-
lord) to espouse his (appellant’s) cause before the High Court.
It is not the case of the appellant that he had expressly instructed
his counsel not to make such a statement.  Further, the statement
was in respect of the commitment of the appellant qua the subject
matter of the proceedings in which the counsel was engaged and
instructed to appear.  Not only that, right from the beginning and
even before this Court, an attempt was made by the parties to
explore possibility of working out an amicable solution, as is
evident from the order dated 9.1.2017 before the respondent
was put to notice of these appeals, and more particularly, dated
14.11.2017.  Therefore, the appellant cannot now be allowed to
resile from the statement made before the High Court, which
the High Court justly declined to undo in the review
petition filed by the appellant for that purpose.  [Paras 9 and 10]
[574-B-E]
2. The appellant is obliged to abide by the unequivocal
statement made before the Court to re-induct the respondent-
tenant in the newly constructed building and to provide him same
area which was being used by him earlier. Considering the above,
the appellant cannot be permitted to extricate himself from the
obligation flowing from the impression given to the Court (before
the High Court and again before this Court) and need to be bound
by the same. [Para 12] [577-D-E]
3. Even before this Court, the appellant, advisedly, showed
willingness to explore possibility of settlement. It is obvious that
the delivery of possession of the suit premises, then in possession
of the respondent, was expedited and made over to the appellant
only after intervention of this Court, which indulgence was shown
because the appellant had expressed inclination to spare portion
of premises for the respondent.  Only after this Court intervened,
the appellant could take the construction of proposed building
forward and completed it on 19.6.2018.  In terms of the order
dated 14.11.2017 of this Court, it was made absolutely clear that
the appellant will not put the newly constructed premises to use
without seeking prior permission of this Court.  That permission
is yet to be given to the appellant. [Para 11] [576-H; 577-A-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
567
4. However, from the subsequent affidavits filed before this
Court, it is obvious that the entire ground floor cannot be given
to the respondent.  Initially, the appellant had given an offer to
accommodate the respondent on the up

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