LexSMT. BIMLA DEVI ETC. versus 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' .
•
315
SMT. BIMLA DEVI ETC.
A
v.'
' .
IST ADDITIONAL •DISTRICT JUDOE AJ'!"D OTHERS )OTC.
,
B
March 27, 1984
[S; MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAn AND RANGANATR
MISRA, JJ.J
Ulla.r Prad~"'' U1ban Buildings (Regu:atlon of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
...Act. 1972, Scope of-Words a~d Phrases-lnport, inrerpreration ar:d nieaning
•. of the word''occup_;/ifJn" occurring in Exp!anarion {JV) to section 22(l}{bJ-
The ·words used are not a rule pf evidence-A tenant ha1 no r-iCht to queltion
.~he mode in which tire. Land.~orcl 111ay choose to fi1•e in.
Jn both Civil Appeal No.41 or 1979 and Civil Appeal No. 319 of
1980, 1he &ppellants are the unsuccessful house-owners. to get an eviction
--order again~t their tenants from tl1c portions of their' respective houses from
th~ court's l-e!ow. In· the first cas·e, the question af-ose whether the .. porlion
·-Of the pi"emises sought to be vaCa1ed by the landlady was one single u:iit or
two separate unitS. In t1'e sec_ond case, the point involved· was whether. the
1 word "occupation":included actual residence of the landlord eVen though
\;he maY not hJve'bcen'fesiding there .
AHowing tliO' appeals, by sp !cial leave, the Court,
HELD: (C.A. No. 41/1979)
In view of the Trial Court's finding
basiDg its decision on the report
~"°f the Co_mmii::.sioner appointed fo·r the purpose, that the en.tire building con·
··;Stituted one single .unit, the appellant bein·g 'in occupation of a portion of
·'f.he same, she is· entitled to get release of the other portion occupied by the
·_ lienant. [32JF-G]
In C.A,. No. 379//980.
1: _I. The case of the a;'lpe:Ilant is clearly covered by-lhc provi:.ions of
'Explanation (iv) to section 21(\)(bl or the Ut•ar Pradesh U.rban Buildings
•(Regulation or Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972. [323C]
1:2; The policy-of the law ·was to give a facility. to the landlord so
:as to securr the entire building where he 'is in occUpation of a ·part of the
""1me and wa11ts to occupy the whole ho.use. [32 lD]
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
316
SUPJ\EME COURT _RE)'ORTS.
(1984] 3 S.C.R-
1'3. lo Babu Singh.Chauhan v. Rajkumari Jain & Ors. [1982l3 S C.R •.
114, the Supreme C0urt;,whi16construing tbe word
·~occup·1tio1" oocurring.•
. in section 21(l)(b) of the 1972 Act, ·uied the word ''po:i'iessio.1", treating.
the word ·"possession" as synonym of "occuf)ation" a:Jd sioca the word
''possession" or'' occupati'oa" may take vari"0us forn1s held that even k~ep ..
ing the house-hold effects by' the owner is an act of occupation.
·
_.
.
'
[l 19H, 3200-GJ
Therefqre, even if a landlord iS ·serviflg Outside or living with his near
relations bilt makes casu:il visits :to his hou'l.e and thus retains cOntrol or-·
ove~.the entire area~ or a.Portion 9f th.e-proPerty, he. Would. in law· be deem~
ed to be in occupation of.the same1 To accept the co::iteotion th1t Explaaa··
tion IV required actu1l physical occup1,1tion by tblj landlord of the portiol).. _
re.t8ip.ed by him. would destory the Very concept of constructive or actria•
possession or occupation. [320H ;· 32 iA-B] •
·
2: 1. All the Rent Control Acts try
~o Qep.rive and curtail -the right
of an. onwer of his property and hlve put 'coOstrJinis anJ restraints on hisi.
right by giving suQstantial protectiO:i to· the ten·1nts io p:.iblk: interest, other-
\Vise if Rent Acts_,were·to b3 nbolishi+t or wer~ not th.er7 the landl"ord could
'get a· tenant eviCted only by a notic~ after expiry of the·.tenancy in accor·
dance with the provisions of the Transfer of·Pcopaty Act. [l21E·F].
.
. .
2:2:.The words "shall be conclusive- to prove" in Explanation (iv)'·
clearly indic~te that it is a s11bstantive right which belongs to the Jand 1ordi
and w;tiich has been affirmed and recogni.sed if a p-art of an accommodatiol}·
is retainfd by the landlord. The words "conclu~ivc to prove that the buil-
ding is bona fide requ'ired_by the landlord" do~s not con.stitute a rule of cvi~
. dence. [J2JF-G] ·
·
·
2:-3. The right to ~j-ectment bavirig accri.led to· tbe apDellant und-er E~~
·p1anation (iv) was a vested right
as an owae·r and ·could not be affCcied hy·
the 1976 amendment unless it. was couched in a language which was either
exp·ressly Or by necessary intendm'ent 'ineant to b~ operative
retrosoectively~
Explariation {iv) deals not merc.ly wit,h a particular procedure but \\-ith the-.•
substaritive rights of the parties.
The Said E'xplan:it[on tias asserted f}nd·~ Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.