LexRISHAB CHAND BHANDARI (D) BY LRS. & ANR. versus NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRY LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 662 A RISHAB CHAND BHANDARI (D) BY LRS. & ANR. ~ V. NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRY LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2005) B SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] R~jasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction). Act, + c 1950 s.3(iii) - 'Landlord' - Plaintiff filing suit for eviction of tenant from premises belonging to Trust claiming that it was authorized by Trost to do so - Defendant's plea that he was D paying rent to employee of the Trost and did not commit any default in payment of re.-:t - Suit decreed by trial court - Held: -.;- A purposive, and not literal, interpretation hP-s io be given to the definition of 'land/ore/' In the Act - It is well settled, if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be E avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given - In the instant case, plaintiff has not been able to show that it was authorized in writing to act on behalf of the Trost either by a power of attorney or any other written document- Unless there i> is some documentary proof that the Trost had authorized its ./#- F agent to file a suit for eviction on its behalf, it cannot be said that plaintiff had any right to file such a suit, even though it ,..... had actually Jet out the premises to tenant and collected rent - Plaintiff is admittedly not the owner of the premises, and only claims to be the agent of the Trust - On the facts and circumstances of the case, this aspect of the matter needs to G be gone into by trial court - Accordingly, judgments and order of Division Bench and Single Judge of High Court are . ,.. )-- set aside and the matter is remitted to trial court - Before the trial court, plaintiff shall also implead the Trost as proforma- defendant and will have liberty to produce any documentary H 662 RISHAB CHAND BHANDARI (D) BY LRS. & ANR. v. 663 NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRY LTD. evidence to show that the Trust had authorized it in writing to A receive rent and file suit for eviction on behalf of the Trust- Interpretation of statutes - Purposive construction - Party. Words and Phrases , 'Landlord' - Connotation of in the context of rent control B and eviction matters. Shri Madan Lal vs. Shri Bazara Singh 1977 (2) RLR, 641 - Approved Case Law Reference:· 1977 (2) RLR, 641 approved Para 10 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2005. ' · From the Judgment & Order dated 17 .1.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Special No. 172 of 2001. c D Pallav Shishodia, S. Sukumaran, Rajesh Khaware and E D.N. Mishra for the Appellants. J.C. Gupta, Nalin Sangal, Deba Prasad Mohanaty and Anil Kumar Sangal for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered by F ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and G order dated 17.01.2005 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur whereby the learned Division Bench has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.08.2001 and restored that of the Trial Court, i.e., the Addi. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated H 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A 31.07.1993. +- . 3. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellants-defendants and for deposit of arrears of rent. The . said suit was decreed by the Trial Court. In appeal the said B decree was set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, which order has been set aside by the learned Division Bench by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal by special leave. 4. The facts in brief are that the suit premises admittedly -+- c belonged to Sitaram Bhandar Trust (hereinafter for short 'the Trust') and the Trust is the owner of the suit premises. The respondent, claiming that it was authorized by the Trust to do so, alleged that it had let out the premises in dispute to appellant No.2 (defendant No. 1 in the suit) and was collecting rent from ), D it. However, thereafter, the def~ndant No. 1 started paying rent to one Ram Das ~odani who claimed to be an employee of -+- the Trust. The respondent then filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellants alleging that the -appellants had committed default in payment of rent. E 5. Under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent_ & Eviction) Act, 1950, under Section 3(iii) the wo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.