LexPRABHA MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY versus BANWARI LAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J ~ PRABHA MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY v. BANWARI LAI'., FEBRUARY 14, 1989 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: s. 2(i)-'-Plot of land-allotted by Custodian of Evacuee Property and temporary structure put thereon~ Whether 'Premises'-Suit for eviction and possession in Civil Court- Maintainability of. Constitution of India, Article 136: Concurrent findings of fact- Non-interference by the Court. The appellant-society was temporarily allotted the property in question by way of a lease by the Custodian of Evacuee Property .in March, 1949. In the allotment letter it was described as an 'Industrial establishment' known as open compound. The inspection report dated January 9, 1951 of the person who had delivered the possession to the sodety described the property as a 'plot' on which the allottee promised to start a factory. Sometime thereafter the society sought reduction of the assessment rent. The order of the Deputy Custodian thereon dated March 31, 1955 granting the relief, again described the property as a 'plot' with a self-constructed shed. Subsequently, the society through its letter dated January 21, 1957 requested that the said 'industrial plot' ·may be permanently allotted to it. However, the Custodian chose to sell the property by auction on July 15, 1960 in favour of the predecessor- in-interest of the respondent. The society moved to have the said sale set aside and in its application dated October 15, 1960 made to the con- cerned authority it mentioned the property as an 'industrial plot'. That application was eventually rejected by the Chief Settlement Commis- sioner on August 25, 1961. In its revision petition before the Govern- ment of India the contention of the society was that the plot was allotted to the society for industrial purpose and they had erected. a building and installed machinery thereon. The Government order rejecting the revi- sion petition too started with a recital that the Custodian had allotted 'an open plot of land' to the soeiety for industrial purposes and that the society had erected 'a temporary structure' on the plot and also instal- led some machinery. 647 A B c D E F G H A B c 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1989) 1 S.C. R. On February IS, 1968 the appellant society filed an application under s. 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking permission to make repairs to the premises in question. The owners resisted the said application on a preliminary objection that the peiitioners were not tenants of any premises within meaning of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Controller found that what was allotted to the petitioner society was only a plot and that the shed was self-constructed. The petitioner, ""If therefore, being a tenant only with respect to an open site, which did not come within the definition of a 'premises' as contemplated by the Act, the petition under s. 44 was not maintainable. The respondent instituted a suit against the society in 1977 seeking 1 its eviction and possession stating that the property was only a plot of land and not 'premises' within the meaning of Delhi Rent Control Act, and that the plaintiffs had terminated the tenancy of the defendants. All the three courts below held in his favour. In this appeal it was contended for the appellant-society that the D property in question was a 'building' within the meaning of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the eviction from which could he sought by the landlord only from a Rent Controller on grounds specified in the Act and not by a suit in a civil court under the Transfer of Property Act read with the Code of Civil Procedure; that the references in the allot- ment letter to 'industrial premises', to the 'industrial establishment E known as open compound', and to the 'factory/workshop/industrial establishment' clearly showed that what was allotted to the society was not a mere plot but an industrial premises. F Dismissing the appeal, HELD: I. The property allotted to the appellant-society in res- pect of which it was a tenant initially under the Custodian and later under the plaintiff-respondent was only a plot of land. The plaintiff was, therefore, justified in attempting to recover possession thereof by a suit for possession in a civil court. (664F-G] G 2. The letters addressed by the society to the Custodian and the Settlement Commissioner as well as the application for re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.