RAKESH KUMAR & SHRI SHAKTI KUMAR versus HINDUSTAN EVEREST TOOL LTD.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 07-03-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAKESH KUMAR & SHRI SHAKTI KUMAR 
v. 
HINDUSTAN EVEREST TOOL LTD. 
MARCH 7, 1988 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
J.., 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: s. 14( J)(a)-Eviction-Notice of 
demand by landlord for arrears of rent-Validity of-To be construed 
~
as understood by common man. 
c 
Section 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, i958 provides for 
recovery of possession of the demised premises, where the tenant has 
~ 
failed to pay the arrears of rent recoverable from him within two 
\ 
months of the date on which notice of demand had been served on him 
in the manner provided ins. 106 ofthe Transfer of Property Act, i882. 
D 
Under the lease agreement the respondent-tenant was required to 
pay rent in advance by the Sib ofeach calendar month. The appellant-
landlords by their notice dated 8th March, 1982 reminded the respon-
dent that the rent for the months of February and March, 1982 was dne 
as per the lease agreement and requested for immediate payment. The 
'r 
E appellants again served a notice on the respondent on i91h April, i982 
that it had not paid the rent for the months of February, March and 
April, i 982 for the two shops and it having committed violation of the 
terms of the lease agreement they do not wish to keep it as their tenant 
any longer and thereby terminated the tenancy requesting the tenant to 
handover peaceful vacant possession of the premises by 31st May, 1982. 
>-
F 
The respondent by their letter dated Isl June, 1982 acknowledged the 
arrears of rent as on that date. 
On a petition filed by the appellants under s. 14(1)(a) of the Act, 
the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction, which was upheld by 
the Rent Control Tribunal. The High Court, however, set aside that 
.G order on the ground that there was no proper notice of demand to pay 
arrears of rent in terms of proviso to s. l4(l)(a) of the Act. 
Allowing the appeals, 
)-
HELD: l. The High Court was in error in setting aside the judg-
H ment of the Rent Control Tribunal. [96F] 
88 
RAKESH KUMAR v. HINDUSTAN EVEREST TOOL 
89 
2. i For obtaining recovery of possession under the Act there 
must be relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the 
tenant must have been in arrears of legally recoverable rent on the date 
of the notice of demand, and a notice of demand had been served upon 
the tenant in the manner provided under s. 106 of the Transfer of 
Property Act, but the tenant neither pays nor tenders the rent within 
two months of the notice of demand. [93E-F] 
2. 2 The notice of the landlord stating therein about the arrears of 
.
~- ··r-enf must be read ln common sense p0int of view bearing in mind how 
/i 
such notices are understood by ordinary people. [93G I 
In the instant case if the two notices dated 8th March, i982 and 
i9th April, 1982 are read alongwith the letter dated isl June, i982 it is 
clear that the respondent was in arrears of rent for the months 
mentioned therein and there was a demand to pay rent. There were 
intimations that in default of payment of rent an eviction petition as 
consequence thereof would follow. That. is how the appellants under-
stood the notices. If that was so, there was clear notice of demand and 
the relevant requirement of the'.proviso to s. i4(i)(a) of the Act was 
fulfilled. T93G; H; 94G] 
Shri Ram Sarup v. Shri Sultan Singh etc., [!977] All India Rent 
Control Journal, Vol. II 522, approved. 
Mangoo Singh v. The Election Tribunal, Bareilly & Orii., [i958] 
-
SCR 4i8; Chimanlalv. Mishrilal, [i985] i SCC 14 and Mangat Ram & 
Anr. v. Sardar Meharban Singh, A.I.R. i987 SC 1656, distinguished. 
(The decree for eviction not to be executed till 30th September, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
i 988 provided the respondent files the usual undertaking in this Court 
F 
within four weeks.) [96Gf-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 933-
934of1988 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.1985 of the Delhi High 
G 
~ 
Court in S.A.0. No. 142 of 1985 
.. 
Soli. J. Sorabji, S. Kumar and Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the 
Appellants. 
Shankar Ghosh, Rajiv ·Endlow, Sandeep Narain and Praveen 
H 
Kumar for the Respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 3 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABY ASA CHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted in both the 
matters and the appeals are disposed of hereunder. 
The facts in both these cases are identical. These appeals are 
directed against the judgment and orders of the High Court of Delhi, 
dated·

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