SMT. A. N. KAPOOR versus SMT. PUSHPA TALWAR

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 31-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. A.N.KAPOOR 
v. 
SMT. PUSHPA TALWAR 
)'- -
JANUARY 31, 1992 
-=
B 
[DR. T.K.THOMMEN ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: 
Section 14 (I) (e) Explanation-Right of landlord to seek eviction of 
tenant-'premises letfor residential purposes '--Interpretation q(--lnclt1des 
c premises let for residential purpose hut incidentally used for commercial 
purpose without consent of landlord. 
'Y 
·Premises let for 1·esidential purpose-Landlord aware that foreign 
students were staying with the tenant as paying guests-Held premises 
used as a boarding house and not private residence-Landlord not enti-
D 
tied to evict tenant. 
The respondent was the daughter of the original landlord who 
had let out the premises to the appellant on October 1, 1961. She 
purchased the property from her father on June 27, 1964 and thus 
stepped into his shoes as the 'landlord' as defined under section 2 
~ 
E 
(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 
The respondent sought eviction of the appellant from the demised 
premises on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. The ap-
pellant resisted the eviction petition on the grounds that the premises 
were not let out for residential purpose only but for commercial 
F 
purposes also i.e. for keeping foreign students as paying guests, and 
that the respondent docs not have a bon~(zde need or requirement as 
such. 
Relying upon the Rent Note and the appellant's letters dated 
,.i.. 
T 
October 7, 1961 and August 18, 1962 addressed to the respondent's 
G 
father, and the earlier proceedings between them fvr eviction of the 
appellant on the ground of sub-letting the premises for commercial 
purposes, both the statutory authorities--the Additional Rent Con-
!roller and the Rent Control Tribunal found that the premises which 
had been let out for residential purposes to the appellant had also 
been used incidentally for commercial purposes so as to exclude the 
H 
application of section 14(1) (e) read with the explanation thereto, 
and dismissed the respondent's application for eviction. 
472 
-~ 
SMT. KAPOOR v. SMT. TALWAR 
473 
~ ~ 
This finding was reversed by the High Court in the respond-
A 
ent's second appeal under Section 29 of the Act. The High Court 
-
found that there was no evidence for the statutory authorities to 
come to the conclusion, which they did, as regards the premises · 
having been used for commercial purposes. The. High Court ac-
cepted the appeal and set aside the. ju~gment and order of the Rent 
Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, and allowed the eviction 
B 
application. 
The tenant appealed to this Court by Special appeal. On behalf 
of the respondent-landlord it was submitted that even if the High 
Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that there was no 
evidence about foreign students being lodged by the tenant, the C 
mere fact that foreign students stayed as paying guests in the premises 
did not imply either that they lodged with the consent of the land-
lord or that such lodging amounted to a commercial use of the 
. building, and that the High Court was right in saying that the ground 
contained in clause (c) of sub-section (I) or' section 14 was attracted. 
Allowing the appeal, and setting aside the judgment of the 
High Court, and restoring the orders of the Additional Rent Con-
troller and the Rent Control Tribunal, this Court, 
D 
HELD: I. The finding of the High Court is unsustainable . The 
High Court was not justified in saying that there was no evidence to 
E 
hold that the premises were used for boarding and lodging foreign 
st.udents. The specific plea of the landlord in the earlier proceedings 
was that the tenant had sub-let the premises for commercial pur-
poses. The tenant contended that she had never parted with her 
exclusive possession of any part of the premises and the foreign 
students who were lodging with her were her paying guests and 
F 
were not her tenants. The plea of sub-tenancy raised by the land-
lord was thus rejected on the ground that those who lodged with her 
were not sub-tenants but only paying guests. [476 G-H] 
2. 
The letters dated October 7, 1961 and August' 18, 1962. 
clearly disclosed the fact that foreign students were lodged in the 
G 
premises as the guests of' the appellant. The evidence let in by the 
appellant and not contradicted by the respondent clearly showed 
that apart from the appellant all the other inmates of the premises 
were foreign students staying with her as her paying guest

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