SANTOSH CHATURVEDI versus KAILASH CHANDRA & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 15-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
SANTOSH CHATURVEDI
v.
KAILASH CHANDRA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6572 of 2010)
NOVEMBER 15, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 – s.2(1)(a) – Eviction – Appellant initiated the
petition u/s.2(1)(a) against the predecessor of the respondents
seeking release of the suit property/premises – The prescribed
authority dismissed the petition and held that appellant cannot
claim ownership right over the coparcenary property and he was
not the landlord of the respondents and also held that his bonafide
requirement did not exist – The Appellate Authority on
re-appreciating the entire aspect of the matter arrived at conclusion
that the appellant had lawfully become the owner of the property
and respondents were tenant under the appellant and held that
case for release of property was made out – Thereafter, respondent
filed writ petition before the High Court – High Court took the
similar view as arrived at by the prescribed authority and reversed
the judgment passed by the Appellate Court – On appeal, held:
The proceedings under the Rent Act is of summary nature wherein
the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is to be taken note to
the extent it is required for considering such eviction petition and
the rigour of examining the ownership ought not to be indulged
in the manner as done in a title suit unless the respondent sets up
title to the very rented property which is adverse to that of the
landlord – In the instant case, the consideration made by the
prescribed authority was in the nature of the title being examined
in the suit for partition or for seeking declaration of title – The
detailed examination with regard to the nature of the right to the
property was made, which was wholly unnecessary in a summary
proceeding when tenant had not set up title to the premises in
question – Father of the appellant admittedly was the owner of
the property and he had made a settlement in favour of his
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 76
76
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
77
son-appellant, the title thus acquired and cannot called in question
– Further, predecessor of the respondents earlier, had initiated a
proceeding before the Rent Control and Eviction officer and sought
alternate premises, that showed that respondents did not have any
issue with regard to the ownership – Insofar as a bonafide
requirement is concerned, there was no material available on
record to indicate that the appellant had any other alternate
premises, the bonafide need of the appellant as claimed, accepted
– Therefore, the Judgment passed by the prescribed authority and
the High Court set aside – Consequently, the Judgment passed by
the Appellate Authority restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Though such detailed examination with regard
to the nature of the right to the property has been made in the
present case, this Court is of the opinion that the same was
wholly unnecessary in a summary proceeding of the present
nature when the tenant had not set up title to the premises in
question.  Irrespective of the fact as to whether the property
was the coparcenary property or had become the absolute
property of father of the appellant, the fact remains that a family
settlement dated 15.11.1999 was entered into, to which father
of the appellant, who was the owner was himself a party and had
given a portion of his property to his son-appellant.  Pursuant
to such oral family settlement dated 15.11.1999 a Memorandum
dated 02.02.2000 was also drawn up. Subsequent thereto the
appellant had also filed an Original Suit No.220/2001 seeking that
the family settlement be declared as valid. The said suit was
disposed of on 19.04.2001 based on the compromise. [Para 14]
[85-G-H; 86-A]
2. Whether the share given by father of the appellant to
his son who is appellant is justified or as to whether the nature
of the document under which the settlement was recorded was
as per requirement of law and valid are all issues which can only
be raised by any other member of the family who would feel
deprived and could have claimed right over the such property.
But in a circumstance where father of appellant who admittedly
was the owner of the property had made a settlement in favour
of the appellant who is his son, the title thus acquired, in any
SANTOSH CHATURVEDI v. KAILASH CHANDRA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
even

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