SANT RAM versus RAJINDER LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 900 · Decided: 22-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
·900 
SANT RAM 
v. 
RAJINDER LAL AND ORS. 
September 22, 1978 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
East Puniab .Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Sec. 13(2) (ii) (b), as applied 
to Himachal Pradesh, construction of-Words & Phrases-"Used the building ... 
for a purpose other than that for which it was leased". 
The appellant, a harija-n by birth and a cobbler by vocation was the lessee of 
a portion of a shop in Ram Bazaar Simla, since 1963, on an annual rent of 
Rs. 300/-. On the landlord's petition for eviction of the appellant a tenant 
under section !3(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, 
as applied to Himachal Pradesh on the ground that the premises were being used 
for a purpose other than the one for which they ~·ere let out, the Rent Controller 
held in favour of the landlord. The appellate authority having reversed it, the 
landlord went in revision before the High Court. The High Court set aside the 
appellate decision and restored the Rent Controller's Order, inferenti:illy inter-
preting the lease deed that the lease being of ai shop the purpose must have been· 
commercial. In appeal by special leave, the appellant reiterated his contentions 
viz. that (a) there was no specific commercial purpose inscribed in the demise 
and therr-efore it was not poosible to pootulate a drersion of purpose and 
(b) 
even assuming that the letting was for a commercial purpose, the fact that the 
appellant had cocked his food or stayed at night in the rear portion of the small 
shop did not offend against S. 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : 1. While interpreting deeds and statutes two rules must be remember-
ed. 
The first one is "in drafting it is not enough to gain a degree of precision 
which a person reading in good faith can understand, but it is necessary to attain 
if possible to a degree of precision which a person reading in bad faith cannot 
misunderstand". 
The second more important one· for the Third World countries 
is that statutory construction, so long as law is at the service of life, cannot be 
divorced from the social setting. Welfare legislation must be interpreted in a 
Third World perspective. [903ErGJ 
The law itself is intended to protect tenants from unreasonable eviction and 
is, therefore, worded a little in favour of that class of benefli.~inries. \Vhen ihter-
preting the text of such provisions-and this holds good in reading the meaning 
of documents regulating the relations between the weaker and the stronger con-
tracting parties-the Court should remember that 
"v:here doubts arise the Gandhian talisman becomes a tool of 
interpretation; "whenever you are in doubt ....... apply the following 
test. 
Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you 
may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going 
to be of any use to him." [903G·H, 904A·B] 
Moti Ram and Ors. 
v. 
State of Madhya Pradesh, (1979] I SCR 335, 
applied. 
r 
/ 
1 
~:, 
SANT RAM v. RAJINDER LAL (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
901 
2. The provisioo. of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent 
Restriction Act, 1949 has notlboen attracted. Even the legislature by a later 
amendment of the definition of "non-residential building'' in its realism, has 
veered round expressly to approve de jure what is the de facto situation prevailina: 
in the urban &reas of Himacbal Pradesh. [905B, F-0] 
3. The life slyle of the people shapes the profile of the law and not vice i·ersa. 
Law, not being an abstraction but a pragmatic exercise, the legal inference to be 
drawn from a lease deed is conditioned by the prevailing circumstances. The 
intention of parties from which courts spell out the purpose of the lease is to be 
garnered from the social milieu. Thus viewed it is difficult to hold, especially 
when the lease has not spelt it out precisely, that the purpose was exclusively 
commercial and incompatible with any residential u<;e, 
ev¢n 
o: a 
portion. 
[903D-li] 
In the instant case, it is impossible to hold that if a tenant who takes out 
petty premises for carrying on a small trade also stays in the rear portion, cooks 
anQ eats, he so disastrously perverts the purpose of the lease. A different 'pur-
pose' in the context is not minor _variations but majuscule in mode of enjoyment. 
This is not a case of a man switching over to a canteen business or closing down 
the cobbler shop and converting the place into a 

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