RAVI KHANDELWAL versus M/S. TALUKA STORES

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 11-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 587 : 2023 INSC 615
587
RAVI KHANDELWAL
v.
M/S. TALUKA STORES
(Civil Appeal No. 4364 of 2023)
JULY 11, 2023
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950
– s.14(3) – Interpretation of – Held: s.14(3) is for the protection of
a tenant – The objective is that from the date a tenant acquires a
right, he must have a right to continue in the premises for a period
of five years, subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of
the lease – In the present case, while the suit may have been
defectively instituted within five years of the tenancy, more than 38
years have now elapsed since the suit was filed – This passage of
time beyond the period of five years would wash away the initial
impediment against the suit – To say that the landlord-appellant
should now, once again, restart the proceedings because the initial
period of five years had not elapsed, even as now 38 years have
elapsed, would be a travesty of justice – It would be a mockery of
justice to make the parties to go through another round in the second
appeal – Furthermore, the 1950 Act itself was abrogated in the
year 2001, with a new statute i.e. 2001 Act, which does not create
any similar bar – Judgment of High Court set aside – Decree of
eviction passed by the first appellate court, affirmed – Respondent-
tenant to hand over vacant and physical possession of the tenanted
premises – Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Tenancy.
B. Banerjee v. Smt. Anita Pan (1975) 1 SCC 166 :
[1975] 2 SCR 774 – relied on.
Gyan Chand v. Kunjbeharilal & Ors. (1977) 3 SCC
317 : [1977] 2 SCR 324; Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth
Additional Distt. Judge and Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 732 :
[1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 380; Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union
Bank of India (2005) 4 SCC 315 : [2005] 2 SCR 680;
R. Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others v.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
Padmini Chandrasekharan (Dead) by LRs (1995) 2
SCC 630 : [1995] 1 SCR 715 – referred to.
Ashok Kumar v. Suresh Chand & Ors. RLW 1996 (1)
Raj. 380; Kahtoon Begum (deceased) through LRs v.
Bhagwan Das & Ors. RLW 2004 (1) Raj. 502; Late
Mahadev & Ors. v. Babu Lal & Ors. (2006) 4 RDD
1868; Raj.; M/s. Vadhumal Kanhaiyalal & Ors. v.
Hemchand & Ors. WLC (Raj.) UC 2007 (270) –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1977] 2 SCR 324
referred to
Para 5
[1975] 2 SCR 774
relied on
Para 8
[1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 380
referred to
Para 10
[2005] 2 SCR 680
referred to
Para 10
[1995] 1 SCR 715
referred to
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4364
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCR No. 4 of 2020.
Anuj Bhandari, Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Mrs. Anjali Doshi, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Harsh Jain, Umang Mehta, Yogit
Kamat, Ms. Shruti Singh, Ms. Akriti Sharma, Mann Arora, Ms. Pratibha
Jain, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. Leave granted.
Procedural History:
2. The respondent is the tenant of a shop situated at Plot E-2,
Kamani Mansion, Paanch Batti, MI Road, Jaipur, with the appellant as
the landlord. The appellant purchased the property from its erstwhile
owner, M/s Jaipur Metal Electric Co., on 30.01.1985. At the time, the
tenanted premises were already under the tenancy of the respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
3. The appellant filed a suit for eviction on grounds of bona fide
necessity before the Additional Civil Judge-I, Jaipur, on 21.05.1985. The
suit was dismissed on 30.10.2002, inter alia, on a finding that the plaint
was not laid in accordance with Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises
(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
said Act’), which proscribed the filing of a suit for eviction within five
years from the date on which the premises were let out to the tenant.
The Trial Court found that the premises were leased only on 08.06.1982
by the predecessor in interest of the appellant.
4. The appellant thereafter succeeded in the first appeal before
the Additional District Judge, Jaipur, in terms of the judgment dated
18.03.2004. This was based on a stated admission of the respondent
that he had initially leased the shop from one Udai Lal in 1958 and, thus,
the suit could not be said to be hit by the restriction under Section 14(3)
of the said Act. The Court disagreed with the respondent’s claim that
the premise
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.