LexV. S. TALWAR versus PREM CHANDRA SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. . • .• • ·v.S.TALWAR . . . v. PREM CHANDRA SHARMA March I, 1984 · s; MuRTAZA FAzAL Au, A. VARADARAIAN AND RANGANATII M1s:KA, JJ. · . , 51 • _ Com true ti on .0/ d~cument1, :Principie o/-'!'rut m·eaning of claUst 12 of th• ieas~ deed dated 5.l .19687 Mealli•g of ''offic1"-Wh1th1r -'"p1rso11al OjjiceH .in clause 12 would. mean that tht premi•eJ were ,,, out for composite purpostJ axi not for residentia/'purPoseJ and th1rtfor• eVictio11 under 1ectio• .14(1} (•)of the Delhi Rent Control Act~annot_l1e I - Prem Chai:td Sharma was· admitted into- tenancy. of the suit prenlises under a lease deed dated 5th-January, 1968, clause 12, th~reof provided: · . . . . - . . ''That the lessee shall use _the premises !Or the ptirpose of Re!identia\ Personal '!ffice ·only a•d llOl for convrurcial Purp•ses!'. /. · • .• ' . The landlord; appellant, applied to the Jtent Controller on Mar;:h 4, 1972, (or· evicti_on of the Respondent under section 14(1) (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Aci. 1958. Th~ re~p_o~dent tenant obtained ICaVe to contest and pleaded i111er alia that the premises. were Jet out_ both for re1idential as also for office and the · composite purpose of the.tenancY took the pre.mises out of the Purview of rcsi· ~Cntial accommodation. VTbe Coritroller did not accept tbC defence· and pasied · -' &n_orderforeviction. Inr~ision, however,_ the High Court.rejected.the Jand· ·.O lord's submissioD.: holding that the use ofthe_wOrd "personal" before ·~officeu ~ wa5intendcd to convey the idea that the-·tenancy. was not for the- purpose ot ~ accominodating a place of business· and reversed the decision of eviction. HenCe _ ' the appeal_ Dy. th~ lan~lord, after obtairitng special leave o! the C9ui-t. Allowing the ·appeal, the Co'urt: . . . · -HE-LD: (ti The.word ~'offi~e"' is used in different senses and- in e3.~h· case that mea_ning must· be assigned to it wh!Ch conform.s with the language U,Jed. Therefore, in the instant case, the High Court was not right in. picking one of· the meanings giyen . in· the chaffiber's dictionary aOd proc~ding to 'the conclusion tha.t Hoffice'" is certainly ~'not residence'' and a Jetting purpose. which . , includes office must be undCrstood to include a_ purpose· other than residence , only. [54·A, 55A·B] · .. . Macmillan v; Guest (1942) A.C. 561 ; Smt. Kaota · (:hand_Surana, (1970) 2s.c.c. 232, r~ferred to. · Kathuria. v. Manak • . • . . A. B. c , ··.n·. E. .. G .. ' B J. c • D J. E G 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l!984) 3 S.C.R ·- 2:1. Law is fairly se.ttled that in construing a document the ordinary rule is to give effect to the normal and natural meaning of the words employed in the document itself. [55 D-El • ' . Krishna Bihari/al v. Guiab Chand and Others, [1971] Supp, S.C.R. 27; D.D.A. v. D.C. Kaushish, (1974) I S.C.R. 535; MonypenilJ v. Monyp.nny, [186ll 9 H.j:..C. 114; In re: Meredith, e;,;-parte Chick, [1879] JI Cb. D. 731, referred to. · · · . . • 2:2. In_thC instant case if;is clear thlit the parties.to the doc.ument were anxious enough and took prop·er care in order to keep the user of the premises confined to resdential purpose; that is why it was expressly''.stipulated in· the lease to prohibit commercial user. Even while permitting an office to be located, equal care was taken to put the)word_ •personal' before -'Office' to convey the idea that the tenant would not be ent!Ued tO transact official business connected with his avoca· tion. Although .ordinarily an office would me'an the place where official business is transacted, a personal office in contradistii1ction to an- office simpliciter or a -- commercial office would be a place where an outsider would not normally be · admitted; commercial transactions would .not take place; there w"ould be no fixity of the location and the tenant would be entitled to use· any portion of the premises as his personal· office and the like. Such a place is referred to as - personal office would essentially be residential and obviously while entering into the present -lease deed~ the parties were nof trYing to cteate a lease of premises for any other purposes. In para 2 of the document, there was no descriptioµ of an)' existin~· offic~room and av~ilable for such u_se to the tenant, nor was space cal-marked' for any personal offiCe Out of this accommodation. It was in the discretion of the lessee to use any part as a personal office. Every less
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.