SMT. SHANTI SHARMA & ORS. versus SMT. VED PRABHA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 1075 · Decided: 26-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. SHANTI SHARMA & ORS. 
A 
v. 
SMT. VED PRABHA & ORS. 
AUGUST 26, 1987. 
"1 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
B 
,,., 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14(1)(e)-'lf he is owner 
thereof-Interpretation of-Landlord constructing building on land 
-
taken on lease from DDA-Whether landlord 'owner' and entitled to 
eviction-Cancellation of the lease of land and subsequent staying of the 
'i 
cancellation-Effect of. 
c 
Words and Phrases: 'Owner'-Meaning of. 
An application was filed seeking eviction of the tenant-appellant D 
by the landlord-respondent on various grounds. The Rent Controller 
granted an order for eviction only under Section 14(1)(•) of the Delhi 
Rent Control Act for bona fide use and occupation. The order of the 
Rent Controller for eviction was confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. 
"'~ 
Before the High Court, it was contended on behalf of the appel-
E 
--
lant that as the lease of the plot on which the building stood was cancel-
led by the DDA, the landlord-respondent ceased to be the owner thereof 
and, therefore, the requirement of Section 14(l)(e) was not satisfied and 
" 
the respondent was not entitled to the decree for eviction. The High 
' 
Court held that the landlord, whose lease had been terminated, but was 
in possession, continued to be a tenant holding over and, therefore, he F 
continued to he the owner, and maintained the decree for eviction. 
In the appeal before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the 
} 
appellant that in order to get a decree for eviction on the ground of bona 
fide reqnirement, the landlord must establish that he was the owner of G 
such property, that where the property was built up on a plot of land 
taken on lease from the Delhi Development Authority, it could not be 
said that the landlord was the owner of the property and that as the 
, 
lease had been terminated, the landlord could not claim to be the owner 
of the property, and, therefore, the decree for eviction on ground of 
bona fide requirement could not be maintained. 
H 
1075 
1076 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended thllt although notice 
was issued, but subsequently the matter remained stayed and the 
respondent-landlord continued to be In possession and did not cease to 
be the owner of the property, that whole of the premises in question did 
.l 
not stand on the plot, lease of which had been cancelled by DDA and a 
major part of. the premises stood on another plot which continued to be 
t 
B on lease in favour of the respondent, and that the tenant was estopped 
from challenging the title of the landlord, as the relationship of the 
landlord and tenant was admitted and it was not open to the tenant to 
~ 
contend that the respondent-landlord had no title to the property. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HELD: The word "owner" has not been defined In the Delhi 
Rent Control Act. [I081E] 
The term "owner" has to be understood in the context of the 
background of the law and what is contemplated in the scheme of the 
Act. The Act has been enacted for protection of the tenants. But, at the 
same time, it has provided that the landlord under certain circumst-
ances will be entitled to eviction and bona fide requirement is one of 
such grounds. [IOSIG-H; 10820] 
Ordinarily, the concept of the ownership may be absolute owner-
ship in the land as well as of the structure standing thereon. But in the 
modern context, where all lands belong to the State, the persons who 
hold properties will only be lessees or the persons holding the land on 
some term from the Government or the authorities constituted by the 
State. The legislature, when it used the term "owner" ins. 14(l)(e), did 
not think of ownership as absolute ownership. [1081F-G I 
The meaning of the term "owner'' is vis·a·vis the tenant i.e. the 
owner should be something more than the tenant. In cases where the plot 
of land is taken on lease, the structure is built by the landlord and he is 
the owner of the structure. So far as the land is concerned, he holds the 
long lease and as against the tenant he will fall within the ambit of the 
meaning of the term "owner" as contemplated under s.14(l)(e). [1082B·C) 
In the instant case, although there were some proceedings for the 
cancellation of the lease, the lease had not come to an end. No steps have 
been taken for dispossesion and only the formality of depositing the 
penalitles and filing of the Inde

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