SMT. VIDHYA DHARI BHAGAT versus ALLAHABAD LAW JOURNAL CO. LTD.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 13-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
( 
SMT. VIDHYA DHARI BHAGAT 
A 
v. 
ALLAHABAD LAW JOURNAL CO. LTD. 
FEBRUARY 13, 1990 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
B 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14, 19 and 21-Re.-
induction of tenant-When permissible. 
The appellant filed two eviction petitions against the respondent. 
The first of these was under section 14( l )( e) of the Delhi Rent Control 
Act, 1958, on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The same C 
was decreed in favou.r of the appellant, and the respondent was granted 
six months time to vacate the premises. This was in accordance with 
section 14(7) of the Act prohibiting the landlord from obtaining posses-
sion before the expiry of six months from the eviction order. 
The second eviction petition flied under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act 
D 
for non-payment of rent, was compromised between the parties, and the 
respondent agre!'d to put back the appellant in possession of the said 
premises. The tenant delivered possession of the premises. When the 
possession was delivered, six months period stipulated under Section 
14(7) did not expire, for executing the eviction decree obtained in the E 
first suit. 
Owing to some reasons, the appellant could not continue in the 
premises and wanted to let out the premises to a third party. At that 
point of time, the erstwhile tenant filed an application under Section 
19(2) of the Act claiming re-entry into the premises. The Rent Control-
F 
ler rejected the application. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal 
directed the appellant to put back the tenant in possession of the pre-
mises. A revision petition was filed by the appellant ·before the High 
Court. It was dismissed in limine. Appellant has preferred this appeal 
against the order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: l. Sub-Section (2) of s. 19 operates in favour of the tenant 
who has suffered an order of eviction under section 14(l)(e) or under 
Sections 14-A to 14-D and 21. The tenant may move the Rent Controller 
G 
for a direction against the landlord to put him in possession of the H 
315 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 
premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks lit, 
if the premises is not occupied by the landlord after recovering posses-
sion, or not occupied within two months by the person for whose benefit 
the premises are held. The tenant has a further right to move the 
Controller for such reliefs if the landlord has at any time within three 
years from the date of obtaining possession, re-let the premises to 
third party without obtaining permission of the Controller under 
sub-section (1) of Section 19, or the possession of such premises is 
transferred to another person not bona fide. If the possession is 
recovered under any order other than those referred to in sub-sec-
tion (I) the tenant has no right to invoke the provisions of sub-sec-
tion (2) of section 19. [3l8F-H; 319A-B] 
2. In the instant case, the possession was actually delivered to the 
appellant by the tenant as per the compromise recorded in the suit 
based on arrears of rent under section 14(l)(a) and delivery of such 
possession cannot therefore, be referable to the decree for eviction 
under section 14(l)(e). In fact, that decree for eviction in Suit No. 
288/77 was not put into execution and it was perhaps found unnecessary 
to execute that decree since the tenant has surrendered possession of the 
premises as per the compromise in Suit No. 330/77 based on arrears of 
rent. The application filed by the tenant under sub-section (2) of section 
19 of the Act was, therefore, clearly not maintainable. [319E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3804 
of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.89 of the Delhi High 
Court in SAO No. 84 of 1989. 
F 
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Mrs. and Mr. Rajan Karanjawala, Atul Chitale 
and H.S. Anand for the Appellant. 
K.K Jain, J.P. Gupta, Mrs. Darshan Gupta and P.O. Sharma for 
the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal is against the order 
for reinduction of the tenant into the premises under section 19(2) of 
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('The Act'). 
H 
The facts are these: The appellant filed two eviction petitions 
) , 
\ 
( 
VIDHYA v. ALLAHABADLAWJ'OURNAL [JAGANNATHASHEITY,J.] 317 
against the respondents; one was under section 14(1)(e) oh the ground 
of personal bona fide requirement for occupation and· 

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