LexSMT. SARLA NARULA versus SMT. RAGHBIR KAUR REHAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SMT. SARLANARULA
A
v.
SMT. RAGHBIR KAUR REHAL & ANR.
OCTOBER 6, 1987
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA. JJ.]
B
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14(l)(e)--Eviction of
tenant on ground of bona fide necessity of landlady-Abandonment of
the premises by original tenant-No novation of original agreement of
tenancy-Locus Standi of party in occupation-Whether tenancy came
to an end.
c
t
The premises in question was taken on lease at a monthly rent of
Rs.350 by the tenant-Company. The rent in respect of the said premises
was being deposited in the bank. Respondent No. I-The landlady was
living abroad and as she and her husband wanted to come back and
settle down in India they required the said premises.
D
The landlady instituted proceedings against the tenant-Company
to which the appellant was not a party. The husband of the appellant
was an employee of the tenant-Company and he retired in 1973. The
-j
appellant filed an application for being impleaded as a party, contend-
ing that the rent was deposited on account of the appellant's husband,
E
and after his death on account of his heirs individually and not on
account of or on behalf of the erstwhile tenant of the premises and the
-
tenant did not oppose the eviction petition because the tenant had left
the premises, and the appellant's husband had become the tenant in his
own right. The application was rejected, and the order of eviction was
passed against the tenant under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Con-
F
~
trol Act, 1958. The appeal against the above decision was dismissed by
the Rent Control Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: After the surrender of the tenancy by the Company, the G
appellant's husband, or his heirs, after his death, had no locus standi,
(""'
and had no right to be joined as party. !366G I
The tenancy was originally entered into between the landlady or
on her behalf and the ('9mpany of which the appellant's husband was
an employee. Admittedly, the tenancy came to an end after the tenant·
H
363
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] I S.C.R.
Company abondoned the premises. The husband of the appellant or
A after his death his heirs could not continue unless there was a fresh
agreement of tenancy in their favour or novation of the original agree·
ment of tenancy. There are no cogent or available materials to show
that there was actually a new contract entered into between the
husband of the appellant and the landlady, or novation of the original
B agreement. !366C-D]
c
The High Court has found that there was no receipt in possession
of the appellant regarding the payment of rent, and that there was
genuine evidence to show that the landlady needed the premises bona
fide. There were concurrent findings of facts of the two courts
below. [366Hl
The appellant and her family have been residing in the premises
for quite sometime. The landlady herself has not yet arrived in India.
The husband is very much in India awaiting the vacancy of the house.
In the circumstances, the appellant and her family would be entitled to
D stay in the premises upto 15.6.1988. [367Cl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2608
of 1984.
From the judgment and Order dated 29 .5 .1984 of the Delhi High
E Court in S.A.O. No. 128 of 1984.
U.R. Lalit, Vivek Gambhir, Sanjay Sareen and S.K. Gambhir
for the Appellant.
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, Mrs. Indra Sawhney and N.S. Das Bahl for
f
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special
leave from the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 29th May, 1984.
G By the aforesaid order the appellant was refused the prayer of being
joined as a party in the proceedings in execution and the order of
eviction against the tenant was passed under section 14(1)(e) of Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958.
In order to appreciate the question it should be noted on 16.1.67
H there was a lease in favour of respondent No. 2 of a monthly rent of
."I"'".
-
SMT. SARLA v. SMT. R.K. REHAL [MUKHARJI, J.]
365
..>(
Rs.350 p.m. in respect of the premises in question in Greater Kailash, A
New Delhi. The tenant was a company called M/s Bharat Carbons &
Ribbons Manufacturing Company. The husband of the appellant Late
T.R. Narula was .an employee of the said Company. He retired in
1973. The rent in respect of the premises had been deposited. It is,
however, not certain aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.