PANDIT KISHAN LAL versus GANPAT RAM KHOSLA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 17-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
17 
PANDIT KISH AN LAL 
v. 
GANP AT RAM KHOSLA AND ANOTHER 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
J. c. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, ,JJ.) 
Urban Tenancy-Eviction of tenant-Application-]i.,J aintain-
ability-East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, r949 (East Punjab 
Ill of r949), s. r3-Transfer of Property Act, r882 (4 of r882), 
s. I08(q). 
The Singer Sewing Machine Company, respondent 2 in the 
appeal, was the tenant in respect of a shop under the appellant 
and informed him that the company had closed its premises, 
that respondent r will conduct his business in the shop, and that 
he will be personally responsible for payment of rent, and in spite 
of the appellant's protest and without his consent delivered 
possession of the said shop room to respondent r. Thereupon the 
appellant applied to the Controller under s. 13 of the East 
·Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for eviction of the 
respondents and the Controller directed the company to deliver 
possession to the appellant. The District Court confirmed the 
Controller's order but the High Court set aside the order, in a 
petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution, as having been made 
without jurisdiction, holding that the company had no interest 
in the tenancy after August 31, 1954, and nothing had passed to 
the respondent r. 
Held, that the High Court was in error on both the points 
and its order must be set aside. 
One of the obligations of a tenant under s. 108(q) of Transfer 
of Property Act, on the determination of the tenancy, is to put 
the landlord in possession. If the tenant fails to do so before 
the expiry of the period of notice, his tenancy continues and 
cannot be terminated by an assignment in favour of another. 
W. H. King v. Republic of India, (1952] S.C.R. 419, referred 
to. 
In the instant case, the company had not admittedly served 
the notice as required by law and, therefore, did not cease to be 
the tenant and since the respondent I was let into possession as 
assignee he was not a trespasser and, consequently, the proceed-
ing before the Controller was maintainable against both. 
1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
356 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave fro!IY the judgment and 
.,. 
order dated the November 18, 1957, of the Punjab 
3 
April 17. 
• 
I96I 
Pandit 
f{is.hnn Lal 
v. 
Ganpat Ra1n 
J( hos la 
18 
SUPRE¥E COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Miscellaneous 
Application No. 712 of 1956. 
B. D. Sharma, for appellant. 
Hardev Singh and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent 
No. 1. 
Y. Kumar, for respondent No. 2. 
1961. 
April 17. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Shah J. 
SHAH, .J.-The Singer Sewing Machine Company-
• 
hereinafter referred to as the company-was, since 
the year 1934, the tenant for business purposes of a 
shop situate at Gurgaon in the State of Punjab and 
belonging to Pandit Kishan Lal-hereinafter called 
the appellant. One Ganpat l'tam Khosla-hereinafter 
referred to as Khosla-was the Sales Manager of the 
company. 
The Legislature of the State of East Punjab enact-
ed Act III of 1949 called the East Punjab Urban 
Rent Restriction Act., 1949, to restrict the increase of 
rent of certain premises situated within the limits of 
urban areas and the eviction of tenants therefrom. 
The Act granted protection to tenants of premises 
used for residential and non-residential purposes. By 
s. 2, cl. (i), the expression "tenant" was defined, in so 
far as the definitioa is material, as meaning any per-
son by whom or on whose account rent was payable 
for a building or rented land and included a tenant 
continuing in possession after the termination of the 
tenancy in his favour, but did not include a person 
placed in occupation of a building or rented land by 
its tenant, unless with the consent of the landlord ... 
... Bys. 13, the right of the landlord to evict a tenant 
even in execution of a decree was restricted and the 
landlord could seek to evict his tenant by an applica-
tion to the Controller in certain specified circumstan-
ces set out in that section. 
On August 30, 1954, the company addressed a letter 
to the appellant intimating that it desired to close 
down its office in Gurgaon with effect from Septem-
of 
her 1, 1954. The relevant part of the letter ran as 
follows: 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
19 
"Now the Company has closed its agency busi-
ness at Gurgaon and Mr. Khosla will be carrying on 
Sewing 

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