LexV. N. SARIN versus MAJOR AJIT KUMAR POPLAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A B c D E F G V. N. SARIN v. MAJOR AJIT KUMAR POPLAI August 9, 1965 [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH ANDS. M. S!KRI, JJ.) ·Delhi Rent Control Act, !958 (Act 59 of 1958), s. 14(6)-'Acquisi- tion by transfer', meaning of-Allotment of share on partition of Hindu undivided family-Whether transfer within meaning of section. The appellant became tennant of premises owned by a Hindu undivid- ed family of which respondent No. 2 was the head. On partition of the family property, the said premises fell to the share of respondent No. I. An application was thereafter made to the Rent Controller by respondent No. 1 under s. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking on the ground of personal need, the eviction of the appel- lant from the premises. The appellant resisted the application, inter alia, on the ground that as respondent No. 1 had acquired premises by 'trans- fer' within the meaning of s. 14 ( 6) of the Act he was precluded from taking advantage of s. 14(1) (e) of the Act. After passing through various stages the matter went to the High Court which held that a share acquired on partition of a Hindu undivided family was not an 'acquisi· tion by tran•fer' contemplated by s. 14(6) of the Act. The appellant came to the Supreme Court by Special Leave . It was contended on behalf of the appellant that under s. 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, and s. 17 ( 1 )(b) of the Indian Registra- tion Act it had been held that partition of a Hindu undivided family was transfer within the meaning of those sections. and the same cons- truction should be placed on the word 'transfer' in s., 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Contr.ol Act. HELD : ( i) Partition really means that whereas initially all the co- parceners have subsisting title to the totality of the property of the family jointly, that joint title is by partition transformed into separate titles of the individual co-paroeners in respect of several ttems of pro- perties allotted to them respectively. If [bat be the true nature of par- tition it cannot be held ,that partition of an undivided Hindu family pro- perty must necessarily mean transfer of the property to lhe individual co-parceners. [354 D-EJ Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundlra/ and_ Others, 43 I.A. !SI, relied on. (ii) Cases decided under s. 53 of the Transfer of Property Act ~nd s. 17 (! )(b) of the ·Indian Registration Act are not decisive of the meaning to be given to the word 'transfer' in s. 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (35 5 D-E] Soniram Raghushet & Others v. Dwarkabai Shridharshet & Another A.I.R. 1951 Born. 94; Naramsetti Venk<;iapyala Narasimhalu and Anr. v. H Naramsetli Someswara Rao, A.I.R. 1943 Madras 505 and Gutta Radha- krishnayya v. Gutta Sarasamma, A.I.R. 1951 Madra• 213, referred to. (iii) Having regard to the object of s. 14(6) which is to prevent lamllords from using transfer of leased premises as a device for obtaining L6Sup.CI/6S-8 350 SUPJlBMB COUl.T J.BPORTS [1966] l S.C.R. advantage under s. 14(1) (e), it cannot be held that a person who ac- quired property by partition can fall within the scope of its provisions even though the propeny which he acquired by partition did in a sense belong to him before such tran.,fer. The transfer contemplarcd by s. 14( 6) is to a person who had no title to the premises and in that sense wu a stranger. The High Cour: was right in coming to the conclusion thats. 14(6) was not a bar to the application filed by respondent No. 1 for the eviction of the appellant. [355 E-H; ~56 BJ Commissioner of Income-tax Gujarat v. I-allubhai Patti. 55 l.T.R. 6:li, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 468 of 1965. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March I, I 965 of the Punjab High Court at Delhi in Second Appeal from Order No. 235/D of 1963. Purushotram Trikamdas and D. Goburdhan, for the appel· Jant. A. V. Viswanath Sastri and B. N. Kirpa/, for the respondents. TI1e Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The short question of law which arises A B c D in this appeal is whether the partition of the coparcenary property among the coparceners can be said to be "an acquisition by transfer" within the meaning of s. 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958) (hereinafter called 'the E Act'). This question arises in this way. The premises in question are a part of a bun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.