IMPORTANT POINT
Where a tenant constructed a latrine in vacant plot adjacent to tenanted premises and subsequently landlord leased out vacant land to tenant and landlord has no right over latrine, it could not be said that vacant land became part of premises let out so as to fall within term of premises under Section 2(i) of Delhi Rent Control Act so as to bar suit for eviction from vacant land.

Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 50 r/w Section 2(i)-Bar of civil suit-Premises-Meaning of-One room let out-There was vacant land adjacent to room-Tenant constructed a latrine in vacant land without permission-Suit for mandatory injunction to demolish latrine-Compromise and withdrawal of suit-Vacant land let out on monthly rent-Subsequent suit after terminating tenancy for recovery of possession of suit land-Defence that suit land falls within term premises and hence suit not maintainable-Untenable-What was let out was vacant land-Suit plot cannot be treated as part of room let out-Suit plot does fall within meaning of term premises-Suit not barred under Section 50.
       A combained reading of the definitions of the terms landlord , premises and tenant shows that the term premises implies the subject-matter of tenancy in respect of which there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant and in respect of which the quantum of rent is agreed to between them. When, in any case, the question arises whether an open plot of land or a plot of land with structures thereon, was let out, the Court has to determine the same on the facts of that case. In deciding this question, it will be useful to bear in mind that if the plot with structure was let out it will fall within the meaning of the term premises but if open plot without any structure was let out then it does not fall within the meaning of the term premises . It is immaterial whether the tenant raised structures before the creation of the tenancy or after he was let in as a tenant. In either case, the tenant alone will have the proprietary rights in the structure and not the landlord. (Paras 9 and 10)
       In the instant case, the structure (latrine) was raised by the respondent unauthorisedly which was the subject-matter of the earlier suit wherein mandatory injunction for demolition of the same was prayed by the appellant. The structure (latrine) admittedly does not belong to the appellant. It belongs to the respondent who can at any time demolish the same and take away the material. While giving the suit plot on rent under the compromise the appellant agreed that instead of demolition it might be used by the respondent. But the appellant did not acquire any right in the structure (latrine) constructed unauthorised by the respondent. From the terms of compromise in earlier suit for mandatory injunction it is evident that only the open plot of land measuring 9 x 7 was let out which does not fall within the meaning of the term premises as defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the Delhi Act. The building which was let out to the respondent is a different premises under a different agreement. The suit plot cannot be treated as part of that building as a separate tenancy was created in respect of the suit plot under the compromise. It follows that the suit plot does not fall within the meaning of the term premises under the Delhi Act and, therefore, Section 50 of the Act ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court will not be applicable to this case. The suit was, therefore, maintainable. (Paras 11, 13, 16 and 17)

JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-This appeal raises a short question as to whether the suit plot is premises within the meaning of Section 2(i) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

2. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the correctness of the judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing her second appeal (R.S.A. No. 105 of 1994) on November 28, 1997. The appellant is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant.

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are not in controversy. The appellant is the owner of property bearing No. 417, Masjid Moth, New Delhi, (consisting of one big room) which was let out by her to the respondent. There is a vacant land of appellant adjacent to the said property of which an open plot of land measuring 9 x 7 (hereinafter referred to the suit plot ) is the subject matter of the suit out of which this appeal arises. The respondent had unauthorisedly constructed a latrine on the suit plot which gave cause to the appellant to file Suit No. 79 of 1978 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, praying for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to demolish the construction made by her on the suit plot. But the parties settled their dispute and filed a compromise under which the respondent became the tenant of the suit plot on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/- and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on March 27, 1978.

4. By a noticed dated December 19, 1983 the appellant terminated the tenancy, created under the said compromise and filed Suit No. 691 of 1984 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, for recovery of possession of the suit plot by evicting the respondent. The suit was contested by the respondent on the sole ground that the suit plot was premises within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the Delhi Act ) and, therefore, the suit was barred under Section 50 of the said Act. On February 12, 1987 the trial Court, after considering all the evidence placed before it, held that the suit plot was premises as defined in Section 2(i) of the Delhi Act, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and thus dismissed the suit. The appellant unsuccessfully appealed against the said judgment in R.C.A. No. 26 of 1987 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, which was dismissed on September 14, 1994. The appellant s second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and hence she is in appeal before this Court by special leave.

5. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the terms of the compromise would clearly show that what was let out to the respondent was only a plot of land measuring 9 x 7 . Even though on that date there was a latrine on the suit plot, yet the subject matter of the tenancy was only plot of land, not structure thereon which admittedly belonged to the respondent. As the appellant had no right, title or interest in the structure, she could not have let out the same but the courts below dismissed the suit of the appellant by wrongly applying Section 50 of the Act.

5. The respondent, though served, was not represented. We, therefore, requested Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocate to assist the court as amicus curiae, who readily agreed to do so. We record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by her in presenting the case of the respondent.

6. Ms. Arora argued that on the date of creating the tenancy admittedly there was latrine on the suit plot, so the courts below were right in construing the compromise and holding that the suit plot with structure was let out, which would fall within the meaning of premises in Section 2(i) of the Delhi Act. In the alternative, she argued that the suit plot being land appurtenant to House No. 417, which was occupied by the respondent as tenant , the suit was not maintainable.

7. Section 50 of the Delhi Act says that except where the Act so provides, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates

Click Here to Read the rest of this document