RAICHURMATHAM PRABHAKAR AND ANR. versus RAWATMAL DUGAR

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 1130 · Decided: 12-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
RAICHURMATHAM PRABHAKAR AND ANR. 
V. 
RAW A TMAL DUGAR 
APRIL 12, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960: 
Sections 12 and 5-Recovery of tenancy premises by landlord for repair, 
alteration, addition or for reconstruction-Tenant's re-entry into possession-
Effect of-Held: Tenant re-enters into possession under the original tenancy 
on same terms and conditions on which he was occupying the building before 
D handing over the possession to landlord-Tenants' obligation to make payment 
of rent which remain suspended for the period of non-occupation is revived 
as before-However, if the premises is altered, added or improved, revision 
of rent is permissible but landlord cannot insist on revision of rent as a 
condition precedent to re-entry by tenant. 
E 
Section 12(1) and (2)-Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and 
Eviction) Control Rules, 1961-Rule 23-0rder of Controller directing tenant 
to deliver possession of building to landlord-Tenant exercising his right of 
re-entry seeking enforcement of Controller's order-Nature of such 
application and limitation for-Held: Tenant's application for re-entry is not 
an application for execution of any order in his favour, hence does not come 
F under Rule 23 but would be governed by Article 137-Limitation period is 
three years from the date specified by Controller-If no time is appointed by 
Controller, tenant must exercise his right to recover possession within 
reasonable time-Tenant who allows time to lapse or fails to avail the offer 
given by landlord within reasonable time, would not be allowed relief by 
G Control/er despite application being within limitation-limitation Act, 1963-
Article 13 7. 
Construction of Statutes-Internal aids-Heading of section or title-
Reliance upon-Held: Heading or title have a limited role-Jn case of conflict 
between plain language of the provision and the meaning of heading or title, 
H 
1130 
.. I 
R. PRABHAKAR v. R. DUGAR 
1131 
latter would no/ con/rot the meaning clearly and plainly discernible from the A 
language of the provision. 
Appellant-landlord required tenancy premises for immediate 
purpose of demclition for erecting new building. He initiated proceedings 
for recovery under clause (b) of section 12(1) of the Andhra Pradesh 
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Rent Controller B 
directed tenant to put landlord in possession of the premises. Tenants filed 
appeals which were dismissed. Tenants then delivered the possession to 
the landlord and landlord gave an undertaking that on completion of the 
wotk the premises will be offered to the tenants. Reconstruction work was 
completed. Appellants offered the rebuilt premises for lease at higher rent C 
as the size of the premises was increased. Tenants filed execution petitions 
for enforcement of the undertaking given by the landlord. Executing Court 
dismissed the petitions on the ground of limitation as they were not filed 
within six months from the date of the appellate order. Tenants filed 
revision petitions. High Court allowed the revision petitions holding that 
the applications were filed within limitation and directed the landlord to D 
restore possession to the tenants leaving it open to them to claim fair rent 
from the tenants. Hence the present appeals. 
Dismis5ing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and E 
Eviction) Control Act, 1960 when the tenant re-enters into possession, he 
does so under the original tenancy which stands statutorily protected under 
the Act and he has not been evicted nor held liable to be evicted. lnspite 
of the building having been repaired, altered, added to or re-erected, the 
tenant shall re-enter to occupy the premises on the same terms and F 
conditions on which he was occupying the building on the date on which 
he delivered possession to the landlord, pursuant to the order of the 
Controller. The rent for the period between the date of delivery of 
possession by tenant to landlord and the date of tenant's re-entry shall 
remain suspended because during that period it was not the tenant but 
the landlord who was in possession of the building. On the tenant's re- G 
entry into possession of the building, his obligation to pay the same rent 
which he was paying on the date of delivery of possession by him to the 
landlord, shall stand revived. If the law p

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