LexUNION OF INDIA versus SHIV DAYAL SOIN & SONS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- --- UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV DAY AL SOIN & SONS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. FEBRUARY 26, 2003 [V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND ASHOK BHAN, J.] Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act; Clause 1 (vii) of Appendix-Xlll: A B Construction of house on land in execution of lease deed on certain C terms and conditions-Part of premises let out for .wn-residential purpose- Issuance of notice by lessor irf exercise of his right of re-entry on the alleged ground of breach of conditions-Challenge to-Writ Petition allowed by High Court-On appeal, Held: since neither terms and conditions of lease deed nor any statutory provisions prohibits use of the premises for non-residential D purpose, the premises could be used for both residential as well as non- residential purposes-Interpretation of Statutes. Legal Maxims: Maxim 'Expressio unius est exc lusio alterius '-Applicability of E / Appellant-Lessor executed a lease deed on certain terms and conditions transferring a plot of land in favour of the predecessor-in- interest on Respondent No.I-Lessee. The lessee constructed a house and let out to one of the tenants for non-residential purpose. The lessor sent a notice to respondent imposing certain amount of penalty for having F committed breach of terms of the lease deed. Since the lessee refused to pay penalty, lessor, in exercise of his right of re-entry in the premises, issued notice exti.nguishing right, title and interest of lessee. Challenging the notice, lessee filed a writ petition which was allowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. It was contended for the appellant that since the house was , constructed on the land for residential purpose which has been used for non-residential purpose, it contravened the terms of lease deed; and that appellant rightly extinguished rights, title and interest of Respondent No. I for contravention of relevant terms of lease. 371 G H 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. t. Predecessor-in-interest of Respondent No.1 was granted lease in terms of Appendix Xlll to Rule 40(3) of the Rules framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. Clause 1 (vii) of Appendix XIII, the breach of which is alleged to have been B committed, required the lessee of the leased land to construct a house. No further embargo or limitation was placed on lessee under the lease. Tlie lease deed nowhere stipulated that the house constructed by the lessee would be used exclusively for residential purpose or would not be used. for non-residential purposes. A house, unless prohibited by the terms of C lease deed or any statutory provisions, can be used for residential as well as for non-residential purposes. [375-A-C] 1.2. One of the different forms of leases is contained in Appendix XI. The lessee under the terms of lease deed in Appendix XI is in fact precluded from using the house for any purpose other than residential D purpose. Terms of lease deed in Appendix XIII are different from the ter,ms of lease stipulated in Appendix XI. The phraseology of the relevant Clause 1 (vii) of Appendix XIII contains no reference to the word "residential". As a canon of statutory interpretation, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, what is expressly mentioned in one place but not in another must be taken to have been deliberately omitted. An assumption E that a house by its meaning and definition is capable of being used exclusively for residential purposes and not for non-residential purposes is not a correct interpretation of sub-clause (vii) of Clause 1 of Appendix XIII. Respondent No.I after having constructed a house, did not contravene the terms of the lease merely because he let out the building p for non-residential purpose. [375-C; 376-A-C) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 947of1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.1982 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 1110of1973. G P.P. Malhotra, Mukun Sharma, Amar Jyoti Sharma for Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellant. T.L.V. Iyer, A.B. Rohtagi, S. Rajappa, Sudhir Kumar Gupta and Anurag Pandey for the Respondent. H ·~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ·- ' \ - / U.0.1. v. SHIV DAYAL SOIN & SONS PVT. LTD. [KHARE, CJ.] 373 KHARE, CJ. By lease deed dated December 10, 1952 executed by the A appellants herein, a plot of land at A/25, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi was leased out· for 99 years to the predecessor-i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.