RAM NATH AND ANOTHER versus M/S. RAM NATH CHHITTAR MAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1961] 1 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 08-09-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SeplembeY 8. 
600 
SUPH.EME COURT REPORTS 
RAM NATH AND ANOTHER 
v. 
[1961) 
M/s. RAM NATH CHHITTAR MAL AND 
OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, 
P. B. GAJENDRAOADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO a.nd 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Suit for ejectmrnt-Bona fide requirements for rebuildi,,g-
Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, I952 (38 of I952), ss. IJ(g), I5. 
Three separate suits for eviction by the appellant were 
brought against the.three respondents within the framework of 
the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act and were based on the pro-
visions of s. 13(g) for the bona fide requirements of rebuilding. 
Terms of compromise which were substantially in accordance 
with the provisions of s. 15 of the Act were put in by the parties 
and decrees were passed in the suits, under which the premises 
had to be vacated by the respondents on a specified day, which 
condition the respondents failed to observe and actually handed 
over the possession of the premises in suit at a later date. On 
completion of the building the respondents filed an application 
under s. 15 of the Act for their bemg put into possession. The 
High Court inter a!ia held that though s. 15 of the Act was not 
applicable to the proceedings yet the respondents could impose 
the terms of the decree and the proceedings could be treated as 
execution proceedings for enforcmg the said terms. 
The appel-
lants challenged the judgments of the High Court and contended 
that on the facts of the case and the circumstances, the decrees 
in suit under s. 13(1) proviso (d) shows that the order was pass-
ed and a decree made m accordance with the terms of s. 15 of 
the Act and further it was significant that the respondents them-
selves had made the application to the Court under s. 15 of the 
Act. The respondents submitted that the decree was not one 
under s. 15 of the Act because the decree was based on a compro-
mise and the time for giving possession was not of the essence 
of the contract : 
Held, that as the tenant respondents did not deliver posses-
sion of the premises to the landlord appellant on or before the 
dates specified in the decree, the provisions of s. 15 (3) of the 
Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (38 of 1952) were not availa-
ble to them and they were not entitled to be put in possession. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeals 
Nos. 401 to 403 of 1960. 
A ppea.ls by specie.I lea. ve from the judgment a.nd 
orders dated March 1, 1960, of the Punjab High Court 
I 
_, 
... 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
601 
(Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Revision Cases Nos. 
166-D, 167-D and 168-D of 1958. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. S. Ohadha and R. S. 
Narukl, for the appellants (in all the appeals). 
O. B. Aggarwala and B. Kishore, for the respondents 
(in C. A. No. 401 of60). 
O. B. Aggarwakl, R. M. Gupta and G. 0. Mathur, for 
the respondents (In C. As. Nos. 402 & 403 of 60). 
1960. September 8. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
· 
Ram Nath 
& Another 
v. 
M/s. Ram Nath 
Chhittar Mal 
& Others 
.KAPUR J.-These appeals are directed against 
Kapur J. 
three judgments and orders of the Punjab High Court 
in three Civil Revisions Nos. }66-D, 167-D and 168~D · 
which were brought by the appellants against three of 
.their tenants under s. 35 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent 
Control Act (XXXVIII of 1952), hereinafter termed 
- the Act. The appellants in all the three appeals are 
the landlords and the respondents in the three appeals 
are three different tenants. 
The appellants filed three separate suits for the 
eviction of their three tenants under cl. (g) of proviso 
to s. 13(1) of the Act on the ground that the premises 
were bona fide required for purposes of rebuilding. On 
February 27, 1953, the parties in all .the three suits 
entered into a compromise in the following terms: 
"We have·compromised the case with the plain-
· tiff. A decree may be passed for Rs. 82/8/- on account 
of rent in suit and for ejectment in respect of the shop 
in. suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defen-
dants. The defendants will vacate the shop by 4.3.53 
and · hand over possession to the plaintiff and the 
plaintiff will hand over its possession again (second 
time) to the defendants within six months from 
4-3-53 after constructing it afresh. We shall pay such 
rent as this court will fix ". 
Thereupon the court passed the following order and a 
decree followed thereon :-
"In terms of the statements of .the plaintiff, 
defendant and counsel for defendants-a decree for 

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