SURINDER SINGH SIBIA versus VIJA Y KUMAR SOOD

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 10-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SURINDER SINGH SIBIA 
v. 
VIJA Y KUMAR SOOD 
OCTOBER 10, 1991 
(T.K. THOMMEN AND R.M.SAHAI, JJ.] 
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987: 
Section 14(3)- Second Proviso-£.xpression "has 11ot vacated such 
building without sufficient cause"-Scope of-'-Possession given in conse-
qztence of reqztisition order cannot be held vacation "not without sufficient 
cause". 
Hirnachal Pradesh Reqztisition and Acqztisition of Immovable Properly 
Act, 1972: 
~ 
Validity or i11validity of requisition order--Ca11not reflect 011 sufficiency 
of cause under Rent Co11trol Act-Requisition Proceedings- Non-filing of 
objection by La11dlord-Effect of 
Words and Phrases: 
"Vacation"-"Sufficient Cause"-Meaning of. 
Section 14(3) ofthe Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act-1987 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
....,,--
enables a landlord to obtain an order for eviction of the tenant if he 
requires the building for his own occupation and he has no other building 
-i_n the area concerned. This right however stands deferred tinder second . F 
proviso for a period of five years if the landlord has vacated a building in 
his use without sufficient cause. 
The appellant, an owner of a house, was in occupation of first floor 
of the house, while the second Ooorwas let out to a Judge. His entire house G 
was requisitioned for occupation of a Judge. The appellant did not tile any 
objection under section 3(2) of the Requisition Act. However, after 
vacating the building he applied for eviction of respondent. The Courts 
below rejected his application by applying the second proviso to section 
14(3) of the Himachal Rent Control Act. 
467 
H 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991) SUPP. 1 S. C. R: 
A 
Allowing the Landlord's appeal anci setting aside the order or Courts 
'< 
below, this Court, 
HELD: 1. 'Sufficient cause' is an expression which is round in 
various statutes. It has been construed liberally In keeping with its 
ordinary dictionary meaning as adequate or enough. That is any 
B justifiable reason resulting in vacation has to be understood as sutncient 
cause. For instance economic difficulty or financial stringency or family 
reasons may compel a landlord· to let out a building in his occupation. So 
long it is round to be :enuine and bona fide it would amount to vacating a · 
building for sufficient cause. And the bar of second proviso stands lifted. · 
C In other words if the vacation of the building was not a pretence or pretext 
the proviso could not frustrate the right or landlord to approach the 
controller for necessary direction to tenant to hand over possession to 
him. [ 470 B-C] 
1.1 Vacation of a building by landlord in pursuance or an order or 
D requisition by the competent authority could not be characterised as 'not 
without sufficient cause'. A landlord has no option. He is required to 
vacate under constraint or law. Therefore the statutory restriction created 
by second proviso would not apply'in such a case. [470-D] 
E 
2. Validity or invalidity or an order under Requisition Act could not 
adversely reftect on sufficiency or cause under Rent Control Act. Reason 
for either arises in different circumstances. Vacating a building, even, 
under an incorrect order passed by a competent authority under 
Requisition Act would be for sufficient reason. The Rent Control 
authorities could not examine_ merit or the order under Requisition Act. 
F Therefore it could not be a valid consideration for holding that the 
building was vacated without sufficient cause. The courts below thus 
committed an enor of law !n applying second . proviso to reject the 
application filed on behalf of the appellant. [470-H,.471-A-B] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2383 of 
1988. 
. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.1988 of the· Himachal 
Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision No. 29 of 1988. 
· 
H 
N.S. Hegde and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Appellant. 
/..._ --
--
---', 
S.S. SIBIA v. V. K. SOOD (SAHAI, J.) . 
Ms. Asha Jain Madan for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the <;ourt was delivered by 
469 
RM. SAHAI, J. The short but interesting question of law that arises 
A 
for consideration in this appeal, directed against judgment of the Himachal 
Pradesh High Court, is if possession given to competent authority under B 
Himachal Pradesh Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property · 
Act, 1972 (for brevity 'Requisition Act') is vacation of premises without 
sufficient cause within second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 14 of

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