VASHU DEO versus BAL KISHAN

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 171 · Decided: 11-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
VASHU DEO 
A 
v. 
BAL KISHAN 
JANUARY 11, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Sec. 116-Statutory tenant, who is. 
Sec. 108(q)-Obligation of Sub-tenant to restore possession on 
determination of tenancy-Sub-tenant must restore possession to sub-tenant, C 
unless tenant is evicted by title paramount. 
Rent Control & Eviction : 
Landlord and Tenant-Plea of eviction by title paramount-Meaning 
and availability of 
D 
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950-Section 
13-Suit for eviction by tenant against sub-tenant for default in payment of 
rent-At the same time, suit for eviction by landlord against tenant for illegal 
sub-letting-Plea of direct attornment in favour of landlord by sub-tenant on 
institution of latter suit-Defence of eviction by paramount title holder-
E 
Availability of-Rule of Estoppel-Applicability of-Held, tenant continues 
to be a tenant until a decree for eviction passed by a Court achieved 
finality-On facts, defence of eviction of landlord by owner so as to exonerate 
sub-tenant from liability for eviction not available to the sub-tenant-Rule 
of estoppel applicable against the sub-tenant-Transfer of Property Act, 
1882/lndian Evidence Act, 1872-Section JOB/Section 116. 
F 
Respondent and appellant are tenant and sub-tenant of the suit premises 
given on rent by landlord-Trust On default of payment of rent, the respondent 
filed suits for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction against the appellant 
under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1950 before Civil Judge. The Trust also filed a suit for eviction against G 
the respondent on the ground of unlawful sub-letting of the shop to the 
appellant, which is pending. The appellant contended that subsequent to the 
institution of the suit by the Trust for eviction against the respondent, the 
appellant has directly attorned in favour of the Trust and that the right of the 
respondent to recover rent and secure eviction against the appellant had ceased 
171 
H 
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) I S.C.R. 
A to exist. The Civil Judge by interim order, held the tenant appellant liable to 
deposit the determined rent in the Court. The Additional District Judge, on 
appeal by the appellant, held that the respondent was not entitled to claim rent 
and recover possession since the appellant has attorned in favour of the Trust. 
In appeal by the respondent, the High Court held that the appellant could not 
B directly attorn in favour of the Trust by excluding the principal tenant under 
the provisions of the Act. A review sought by the appellant was also dismissed. 
Hence these appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control 
C of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant is a 
landlord and the sub-tenant is a tenant in relation to the tenant who has 
inducted him on the premises. Further, in spite of the tenancy having come to 
an end under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or by the 
terms of contract, the tenant does not cease to be a tenant and continues to 
D hold that status until a decree for eviction under the provisions of Rajasthan 
Act has been passed against him. Where the tenancy premises are governed 
by a rent control law, merely on termination of tenancy, the tenant cannot be 
evicted. The tenant is entitled to continue in possession enjoying status almost 
on par with a person whose contractual tenancy still subsists. He cannot be 
evicted unless a ground for eviction under the relevant provision of rent 
E control law is made out. He is not a tenant holding over because his tenancy 
is not continuing by volition or by act of the parties. Such continuance is 
attributable to the protection conferred by statute and, therefore, he is called 
a statutory tenant and his tenancy a statutory tenancy. The tenancy would 
determine only on a decree for eviction being passed against him. 
F 
(176-H; 177-A-CI 
G 
Smt. Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors., AIR (1985) SC 796; 
Damadi/al & Ors. v. Parashram & Ors., AIR (1976) SC 2229 and Smt. Chander 
Kali Bai & Ors. v. Jagdish Singh Thakur & Anr., AIR (1977) SC 2262, relied 
OIL 
Kewal Ram v. Mangu Mal, AIR (1974) Raj 201, referred to. 
1.2. The respondent-tenant holding the premises from the Trust would 
remain a tenant until the passing of a decree for eviction under Section 13 of 

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