VINAY KR. KHAMBATE versus VINAY KR. AGGARWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 1077 · Decided: 22-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
VINA Y KR. KHAMBA TE 
A 
... 
v. 
VINA Y KR. AGGARWAL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 22, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; Ss. 2(J)(ii) and 22(d)/Code of Civil c 
Procedure, 1908; O.XXJJ R.4: 
Eviction petition-Tenant died during pendency of the petition-
Landlord filing an application under O.XXJJ R. 4 CPC claiming that son of 
the deceased tenant could not acquire the tenancy in succession even for a 
limited period of one year-Allowing the application, Rent Controller passed D 
evidion order on the same day-Appeal dismissed by Tribunal-Challenge 
to--Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Rent Controller allowed the 
eviction petition on the same day in terms of O.XXll R.4 CPC rlw s. 2(1)(ii) 
of the Act without taking into consideration objection taken by the opposite 
party-It would have been appropriate for the Rent Controller to permit the 
son of the deceased-tenant to place material in support of his stand, which E 
was not done-Hence, orders of the Courts below set aside and the matter 
remitted to Rent Controller to hear the son of the deceased tenant on the 
question as to his acquiring of perpetual tenancy right from his deceased 
father-tenant. 
i 
Respondent-landlord filed a 'petition for eviction of the appellant's father-
F 
tenant under Section 22(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant 
expired. Respondent moved an application under Order XXll Rule 4 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating that the appellant was the sole surviving 
legal heir of the deceased-tenant. Since tenancy of the father of the appellant 
had been terminated during his life time, as such there was no succession of G 
... 
the son to acquire the tenancy in succession even for a limited period of one 
year. Rent Controller allowed the application under Order XXll Rule 4 of the 
Code read with Section 2(l)(ii) of the Act. While deciding the application, the 
Rent Controller passed the eviction order on the same day by observing that 
1077 
H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A the appellant-son was not financially dependent on his father at the time of 
his death and since the suit premises were let out for residential purposes, 
tenancy of the father having been terminated by notice, appellant-son had a 
right to continue in possession on the suit premises for a limited period of 
one year only and he cannot take the defence as taken by his father-tenant. 
Appellant challenged the said order by preferring an appeal before the Rent 
B Control Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. A petition challenging 
the orders of the Additional Rent Controller and the Tribunal was filed by the 
appellant, which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
c 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The Additional Rent Controller allowed the application in 
terms o.f Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code and on the same day without 
considering the various stands taken in the objection, disposed of the matter. 
jPara 91 [1080-Fl 
D 
1.2. It would have been appropriate for the Additional Rent Controller 
to permit the appellant, son of the deceased-tenant, to place materials in 
support of his stand which obviously has not been done. In the above 
circumstances, order of the High Court confirming the order of the Tribunal 
and the Additional Rent Controller is set aside and the matter is remitted to 
the Additional Rent Controller who shall hear the appellant on the question 
E as to whether the appellant was perpetual tenant and/or inherited the tenancy 
right of his father. I Para I0] [ 1080-G-H I 
1.3. It is clarified that no opinion has been expressed on the merits. 
[Para IOI 
F 
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 895 of2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 2.6.2006 of the High Court of 
Delhi at 'New Delhi in C.M. (Main) No. 889/2006. 
Chaman Lal Sachdeva,Sanjeev Sachdeva, Pree! Lal Singh, Sumesh 
G Dhawan, Chetan Chopra and Saurab Sharma for the Appellant. 
Shankar Divate and Dipesh Chaudary for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. I. Leave granted. 
... 
\ 
·' 
,.. 
VJNAYKR. KHAMBATE v. VINAYKR.AGGARWAL [PASAYAT,J.] I 079 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the orders passed by a learned Single A 
judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the petition filed by Appellant. 
3. A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice. 
4. Respond

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