LexSMT. YAMUNA MALOO versus ANAND SWARUP
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)
~·
SMT. YAMUNA MALOO
v.
ANAND SWARUP
FEBRUARY 28,1990
[RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 2 I-Limited tenancy-
Objection to validity-To be raised before the lease lapses.
A
B
The appellant-landlady and the respondent-tenant appeared
C
before the Rent Controller for creation of a tenancy under Section 21 of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Accordingly, the authority passed an
order creating tenancy for a limited period of two years. Since the
respondent did not vacate the premises on the expiry of two years, the
appellant moved the Rent Controller for issuance of warrant of posses-
sion. The Respondent filed his objection. Entertaining the objection the
D
Rent Controller dismissed the petition, holding that the order granting
permission for the tenancy under section 21 of the Act was not in
accordance with law. The appellant's first appeal before the Rent Con-
trol Tribunal, as also her second appeal before the High Court met the
same fate.
This appeal, by special leave, is against the High Court's order
dismissing the second appeal'in limine.
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the Rent Con-
troller should not have entertained the objection of the respondent as
the same has not been filed during the currency of the tenancy. It was
also contended that some of the considerations which weighed with the
Rent Control Tribunal were not relevant for judging the bona [ides and
genuineness of actions taken at the time of creating the tenancy.
Allowing the appeal, this Court, ·
E
F
G
....._
HELD: l. Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 deals
with a normal tenancy and protects the tenant against unreasonable
eviction. Section 21 of the Act, on the other hand, places the tenant
outside the purview of s. 14 and provides for an order of eviction at the
time of creation of the tenancy. There is a purpose behind enacting s. 21
of the Act. The Legislature considered it appropriate ·that should a
H
715
A
B
c
I:>
E
F
G
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990) I S.C.R.
landlord not need his residential premises for a period, instead of keep-
ing it vacant the same could he available for a tenant's use on being let
out for a limited period conditional upon the tenant's surrendering
possession as soon as _the tenancy terminates by effiux of time and the
need of the landlord revives. [719G-H; 720A]
2.1. The rule in Noronah's case has to be confined to a particular
set of facts and should not be freely extended so as to take away the
effect ofs. 21. [724F-G)
2.2. In Vohra's case and in' Shiv Chander Kapoor's case, though
not arising for determination in either, it has been stated while laying
down the rule that proceeding to challenge limited tenancy has to be
taken during the currency of the tenancy, an objection filed by the
tenant could be looked into, is indeed an obiter. The rule having been
stated to the contrary in Vohra's case, there was indeed no warrant to
indicate the contra situation. Perhaps to meet the eventuality which
might arise in a particular case, the exception has also been indicated. If,
the tenant has an objection to raise to the validity of the limited tenancy
it has to be done prior to the lapse of the lease and not as a defence to the
landlord's application for being put into possession. Even if such an
exercise is available that must be taken to be very limited and made
applicable to exceptional situations. Unless the tenant is able to satisfy
the Controller that he had no opportunity at all to know the facts earlier
and had come to he aware of them only then, should such an objection
be entertained. [725E-H]
2.3. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the belated
objections of the tenant should not have been entertained and prayer
for possession made by the landlady after the limited tenancy ran out
should have been granted. [726A)
S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 281;
J.R. Vohra v. India Export House Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., [1985] 2 SCR 899;
Jnder Mohan Lal v. Ramesh Khanna, [1987] 4 SCC I and Shiv Chander
Kapoor v. Amar Bose, JT 1989 ( 4) SC 471, referred to.
[This Conrt directed that the landlady be put into possession of
the premises by 31st March, 1990.]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1319
of 1990.
r
'
)-
'{
I
~
SMT. YAMUNA v. ANAND SWARUP [MISRA, J.]
717
'f"
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.19Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.