LexSMT. MOHINI BADHWAR versus RAGHUNANDAN SARAN ASHOK SARAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SMT. MORINI BADHW AR v. RAGHUNANDAN SARAN ASHOK SARAN APRIL 27, 1989 [R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.] f "\ Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14(1)(h)-Tenant obtained vacant possession of own house-Sold it four days later- Circumstance that tenant lost possession on the date of filing of eviction petition-Whether affords protection against eviction-'Acquired vacant C possession of a residence'-lnterpretation of. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant from the suit premises under s. 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground that the appellant had acquired vacant possession of her house on November 20, 1973, after the suit D premises had been let out to her on April 1, 1971. The appellant con- tended that she was not liable to be ejected. The Assistant· Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal ;... concurrently held that even though the house owned by the appellant was not in her occupation on the date the petition was filed, it was E sufficient for the purpose ofs. 14(1)(h) that sometime before the filing of the petition she had obtained vacant possession of the house, and thus had alternative accommodation during November 20-24, 1973, i.e., from the date she obtained vacant possession from her tenant till she sold it. The High Court also held that the ground for ejectment had ~ been made out when the eviction petition was filed. ! F In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellant-tenant ? it was contended that before the earlier tenant had vacated the house, the appellant had already entered into an oral agreement to sell the house to another person, which was formalised on a written document on November 24, 1973 and as the appellant was under legal obligation G to sell the house she was not entitled to enter into and to continue in 'r-- possession of the house when it was vacated, and therefore, the house could not be said to constitute alternative accommodation, for the purpose ofs. 14(1)(h) of the Act. Dismissing the appeal, H 748 • ,, I MOHINI v. RAGHUNANDAN [PATHAK, CJI 749 HELD: The Rent Control Tribunal has found against the exis- tence of any oral agreement for the sale of the suit house. It was only after four days of obtaining possession on November 20, 1973 from the original tenant that the appellant executed an agreement for sale. Thus, it is clear, that the appellant ,came into the house belonging to her on November 20, 1973 and it was available to her for her occupation. The circumstance that she lost possession on the date when the eviction petition was filed does not protect the appellant against s. 14(1)(h) of the Act. t750F-G) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No, 1842 of 1981. From the Judgment and Order dated.30.4.1981 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No. 418 of 1978. Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, H.K. Puri and S.D. Lal for the Appellant. Dr. Y.S. Chitale, S.N. Kacker, Mukul Mudgal and N.S. Das Bahl for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A B c D PATHAK, CJ. This is a tenant's appeal arising out of proceed- E ings for her ejectment. The respondent, as landlord of the premises let to the appellant, filed a petition for her eviction on the ground set forth ins. 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that is to say, that the appellant had "acquired vacant possession of ....... a residence" after the com- f mencement of the Act, viz, her own house D-196, Defence Colony, New Delhi and was therefore liable to hand over possession of the rented premises occupied by her to the respondent. It was alleged that the appe1J1ant had acquired vacant possession of her house on 20 Novembeir, 1973 after the premises in suit had been let out to her on 1 April, 1971. The appellant denied that she was liable to ejectment. G The Assistant Rent Controller, Delhi, and the Rent Control Tribunal concurrently held that the appellant was owner of house D-196, Defence Colony, New Delhi, that on 20 November, 1973 the previous tenant had vacated the premises and handed over vacant possession and that thereafter she had sold it to one Smt. Leela Wati H A B c D E F G 750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 2 S.C.R. on 24 November, 1973. It was observed that during the period 20 November, 1973 to 24 November, 1973 it must be taken that she was in possession of alternative accommodation. It was also held con- currently
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.