PARASRAM HARNAND RAO versus SHANTI PRASAD NARINDER KUMAR JAIN & ANR.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 10-04-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

444 
A 
PARASRAM HARNAND RAO 
v. 
SHANTI PRASAD NARINDER KUMAR JAIN & ANR. 
April 10, 1980 
B 
[S. MURTAZA FA.ZAL ALI AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 25 read with Order IX Rule 9 C. P. C., 
scope of-Whether the dismissal of the earlier suit of respondent-tenant for 
default of appearance under Ordex IX Rule 9 C. P. C. a bar for an application 
under section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 
C 
Transfer of tenancy rights by the Official Liquidator, whether voluntary and 
_l__ 
did not come under the mischief of section 14(1) (b) of the D<lhi Rent Con-
trol Act. 
The appellant landlord executed a .lease in respect of the disputed premises 
in favour of respondent 2 for three years as far back as 1-4-1942. In 1948, 
a suit was brought by the appellant for eviction of the tenant for non payment, 
D 
of rent on the ground of conversion of the user of the premises. The suit for 
possession was however dimissed but a decree dated 31-11-1948 for arrears of 
rent was passed and it was held that Laxmi Bank was the real tenant. Subse-
quently, the Bombay High .Court ordered the Bank to be wound up and in the 
winding up proceedings, the High Court appointed an Official Liquidator who 
on 16-2-1961 sold the tenancy rights to respondent No. 1. The sale was con-
firmed by the High Court on the same d~te and as a result thereof respondent 
E 
No. 1 took possession pf the premises on 24-2-1961. On 5-4-1961, the 
landlord appellant filed ao application under the Delhi Rent Control Act for 
eviction of Laxmi Bank. On 31-7-1961, a decree for eviction was passed in 
favour of the appellant. 
On 22-1-1963, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for decla-
ration that he ,was a ten'.lnt Of the landlord appellant. The suit was dismissed 
for non-prosecution on 5-5-1964 and an application to set aside the ex parte order 
was also dismissed and the appeal against that order also failed. 
Thereafter 
F 
respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 25 Oil' the Delhi Rent Con-
trol Act for recalling the warrant of possession issued by the Court in pursuance 
of the decree dated 31-7-1961 in favour of the appellant. The Rent Controller 
allowed it on 20-12-1966. 
An appeal to the Rent Controller Tribunal 
was 
.,f_ 
ordered by order dfited 25-11-1968 in favour of the appellant A second appeal 
filed by respondent No. 1 to the High Court was allowed in his favour and the 
Rent Controller's order allowing recalling of the warrant of possession was 
-4 
G 
restored. Hence the appeal by special leave by the landlord. 
8 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HEID : 1. The application of respondent No. 1 under Section 25 of the 
Delhi Rent Control Act is clearly barred by the principle contained in order 
IX Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code. It was the appellant who brought the pre-
vious suit which resulted in a decree for eviction of the tenant on 31-7-1961-a 
date when the Ist respondent had already taken possessicin of the premises by 
virtue of transfer made by the Official Llquidator. There is nothing to show 
that respondent No. 1 was a tenant within the meaning of Delhi Rent Control 
f 
P. H. RAO v. SHANTI PRASAD (Fazal Ali, J.) 
445 
Act so as to· maintain an application under section 2S of the Act, when in 
A 
fact he was an unlawful sub-lessee. 
[447A, E, F-G] 
Suraj Ratan Thirani and Ors. 
v. 
Aza1nabad Tea Co. and Ors. {1964) 6 
S. C. R. 192; applied, 
2. The language of section 14(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is wide 
enough not only to include any sub-lease but even an assignment or any other 
B 
mode by which possession of the tenanted premises is parted. In view of the 
wide amplitude of s, 14 (b), it does not exclude even in involuntary 
sale, 
[4480-EJ 
In the instant case, the official Liquidator had merely stepped into 
the 
shoes of Laxmi Bank which was the original tenant and even if the official 
liquidator had transferred the tenancy interest to respondent No. 1 under the 
C 
order of the Court, it was on behalf of the original tenant. It was undoubtedly 
a voluntary sale which clearly fell within the mischief of s. 14 (1\ (b) of the 
De1hi Rent Control Act. 
Assuming that the sale by the Official Liquidator was 
an involuntary sale, then it undoubted\ y beCame an assignment as provided for 
by s. 14 (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. 
[448A-C] 
Krishna Das Nandy v. Bidhan Chandra Roy, A.I.R. 1959 Cal. 181) Over• 
D 
rnled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 1970. 
Appeal by Special Leave f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.