S. SANYAL versus GIAN CHAND

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 14-09-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

536 
S. SANYAL 
I'. 
GIAN CHAND 
September 14, 1967 
(J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.] 
Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (38 of 1952), s. 13(l)(e)~ B 
HtYUSe let out both for residential and non-'l'esidential purposes--
Landlord asking for eviction of tenant on ground that he wants it 
for his own residence-Jurisdiction of court to pass decree. 
Under s. 13(1) (e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 
1952, the jurisdiction of the court to evict a tenant, may be exer-
cised in favour of a landlord who wants the premises bona fide 
for his own residence, only when the premises are let out for C 
residential purposes, and not, when the premises being let out for 
eomposite purposes, are used for residential and non-residential 
purposes. 
The owner of a house let it out to the appellant for her resi-
dence and for running a school. Th,e respondent purchased the 
house and filed a suit for evicti<>n of the appellant. The suit wu 
dismissed, but the High Court, in revision, held that a decree in D 
ejectment limited to that portion of the house which was used for 
residential purposes by the tenant could be granted, and remanded 
the case for demarcating that portion and passing a decree. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD: The order of the High Court was without jurisdiction and 
should be set aside. (540A] 
The contract of tenancy \\·as a single and indivisible contract, E 
and. in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect, it was 
not open to the Court to divide it into two contracts-one of letting 
out for residential purposes and the other for non-residential pur-
poses-and to grant relief under the section in respect of that portion 
of the property which was being used for residential purposes. 
[538E] 
Dr. Gopal Das Verma v. S. K. lilhardwaj & Anr. [19621 2 S.C.R. 
678, followed. 
Jr 
Kunwar Behar; v. Smt. Vindhya lleri, A.I.R. 1966 Punj. 481. 
approved. 
Motilal and Anr. v. Nanak Chand & Anr .. (1964) Punj. L.R. 179, 
overruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO'.'i: Civil Appeal No. 853 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated November 16. 
1964 of the Punjab High Court. Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil 
Revision No. 531-D of 1961. 
M. C. Misra and M. V. Goswami. for the appellant. 
Harbans Singh. for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
The appellant Miss Sanyal has since 1942 been a 
ten'1nt of a house in Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh. New 
Delhi, a part of whidh is used for a Girls" School and the rest 
JI 
•
SAliYAL r. GIAN CHAND (Shul1, J.) 
A for residential purposes. The respondent Gian Chand purchased. 
the house from the owner by a sale deed dated September 19, 1956,. 
and commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge 
!st Class, Delhi, against the appellant for a decree in ejectment in 
respect of the house. Numerous grounds were set up in the plaint 
in support of the claim for a decree in ejectment, but tlie ground 
B that the respondent required the house bona fide for his own resi-
dence alone need be considered in this appeal. The Trial Court dis-
missed the suit and the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi dismissed 
an appeal from that order holding that the house being let for pur-
poses non-residential as well as residential, a decree in ejectment 
could not be granted under s. 13(1)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer 
Rent Control Act, 1952. The High Court of Punja:b (Delhi Bench) 
C in a revision petition filed by the respondent held that on the find-
·ing recorded by the First Appellate Court a decree in ejectment 
limited to that portion of the house which was used for residential 
purposes by the tenant could be granted, and remanded the case· 
to the Rent Controller "for demarcating those portions which were 
being used for residence" and to pass a decree in ejectment from 
D those specified portions of the house. Against that order the tenant 
has appealed to this Court. 
It is necessary in the first instance to read the material pro-· 
visions of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The expres-
sion "premises" is defined ins. 2(g) of the Act as."any building or 
part of a building which is, or is intended to be let separately 
E for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other pur-
pose, and includes. . . . " Section 13 of the Act which grants 
protection to tenants against eviction provides insofar as it is. 
material : 
F 
G 
B 
''\!). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contain-
ed in an

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