1. Eviction suits for rebuilding under Section 13(1) proviso (g) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act — compromise decree — delayed delivery of possession by tenants. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 203
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
8th September, 1960.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.L. KAPUR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Ram Nath and another (in all the Appeals), Appellants
Versus
1 M/s. Ram Nath Chhittar Mal (In C. A. No. 401 of 60), 2. Sohan Lal (In C. A. No. 402 of 60) and 3. Shri Jai Kishan and another (In C. A. No. 403 of 60), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 401 to 403 of 1960.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. S. Chadha and R. S. Narula, Advocates, with him), for Appellants (in all the appeals); Mr. C. B. Aggarwala, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. Kishore, Advocate, with him), for Respondents (in C. A. No. 401 of 60); Mr. C. P. Aggarwala, Senior Advocate, (M/s. R. M. Gupta and G. C. Mathur, Advocates with him), for Respondents (in C. As. Nos. 402 and 403 of 60).
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.KISHORE, C.B.AGARWAL, C.P.AGARWAL, G.C.MATHUR, R.M.Gupta, R.S.NARULA, S.S.Chadha
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.KISHORE, C.B.AGARWAL, C.P.AGARWAL, G.C.MATHUR, R.M.Gupta, R.S.NARULA, S.S.Chadha
Under the Rent Control Act, a tenant's right to repossession after rebuilding is contingent upon delivering possession of the premises on or before the date specified in the decree; failure to do so disentitles the tenant from seeking repossession under Section 15(3).
Headnote:(A) Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 - Sections 13(1) and 15 - Eviction for rebuilding - Repossession by tenant - Condition for repossession - Delivery of possession by tenant on or before the specified date - Mandatory requirement - Failure to deliver possession by the specified date disentitles tenant from seeking repossession under Section 15(3). (Paras 3, 5)
(B) Compromise Decree - Nature of decree - Where a suit for eviction is filed within the framework of a rent control act and a decree is passed based on a compromise incorporating the requirements of the act, such decree is governed by the provisions of the act. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
Landlords filed suits for eviction of tenants on the ground that the premises were bona fide required for rebuilding. A compromise was entered into where the tenants agreed to vacate by a specific date, and the landlords agreed to return possession within six months after rebuilding. The tenants delivered possession after the specified date. Upon completion of the building, the tenants applied for repossession. The lower court held that time was not of the essence and ordered possession to be restored to the tenants.
Findings of Court:
The decree was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Since the tenants failed to deliver possession on or before the date specified in the decree, the statutory protection and right to repossession under Section 15(3) were not available to them.
Issues: Whether the tenants were entitled to be put back into possession under Section 15 of the Act despite delivering possession of the premises after the date specified in the compromise decree.
Ratio Decidendi: For a tenant to be entitled to repossession after rebuilding under Section 15, it is a condition precedent that the tenant must deliver possession on or before the date specified in the decree or order. Failure to adhere to this timeline precludes the tenant from seeking the remedy of repossession or compensation under Section 15(3).
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a compromise decree for rebuilding falls under Section 15 of the Act and whether time for delivering possession was the essence of the agreement. (Para 4 )
3. The decree was passed within the framework of the Act and substantially followed Section 15; failure to deliver possession by the specified date precludes statutory relief. (Para 5 )
4. Statutory right to repossession under Section 15(3) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act is contingent upon the tenant delivering possession on or before the specified date. (Para 5 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court judgments and orders set aside — costs awarded to appellants. (Para 7 )
6. Does a compromise decree in an eviction suit for rebuilding fall under the statutory regime of Section 15 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act?
Yes, if the suit is brought within the framework of the Act under Section 13(1) proviso (g) and the decree is substantially in accordance with Section 15, it is treated as a decree under that section. (Para 5 )
7. What is the effect of a tenant failing to deliver possession by the date specified in a decree for rebuilding under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act?
If the tenant does not deliver possession on or before the specified date, the protections and remedies provided under Section 15(3) of the Act, including the right to be put back in occupation, are not available. (Para 5 )
8. Can a tenant seek repossession under Section 15 if they delivered possession after the court-mandated date?
No, the statutory right to be placed back in occupation upon completion of rebuilding is conditional upon the tenant delivering possession on or before the date specified in the decree or order. (Para 5 )
Judgment
KAPUR, J. : These appeals are directed against three judgment and orders of the Punjab High Court in three Civil Revisions Nos. 166-D, 167-D and 168-D which were brought by the appellants against three of their tenants under S. 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (XXXVIII of 1952) hereinafter termed the Act. The appellants in all the three appeals are the landlords and the respondents in the three appeals are three different tenants.
2. The appellants filed three separate suits for the eviction of their three tenants under cl. (g) of proviso to S. 13(1) of the Act on the ground that the premises were bona fide required for purposes of rebuilding. On February 27, 1953, the parties in all the three suits entered into a compromise in the following terms :
"We have compromised the case with the plaintiff. A decree may be passed for Rs. 82/8/- on account of rent in suit and for ejectment in respect of the shop in suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. The defendants will vacate the shop by 4-3-53 and hand over possession to the plaintiff and the plaintiff will hand over its possession again (second time) to the defendants within six months from 4-3-53 after constructing it afresh. We shall pay such rent as this court will fix."
Thereupon the court passed the following order and a decree followed thereon :
"In terms of the statements of the plaintiff defendant and counsel for defendants - a decree for Rs. 82/8/- on account of rent in suit be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. Also decree for ejectment be passed in respect of the shop in suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants and that the defendants DO give possession of the shop in suit by 4-3-53 to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff after constructing it afresh within six months from 4-3-53 give it to the defendants. From out of the money deposited, a sum of Rs. 82/8/- be paid to the plaintiff and the balance returned to the defendants. The defendants shall be responsible to pay the rent fixed by the Court."
According to the decree the possession was to be given to the appellants on March 4, 1953 but it was actually delivered by the three respondents between March 7, and 15, 1953. On the completion of the building the three respondents filed three separate applications under S. 15 of the Act for their being put into possession. These applications were filed on October 7, 1953. The High Court held that the compromise did not comprise any matter which was not the subject matter of the suit; that the respondents could enforce the terms of the decree in the proceedings which they took i.e. under S. 15 of the Act; that time was not of the essence of the compromise and therefore of the decree and consequently in spite of the possession of the premises having been given by the respondents after the date specified in the decree, i.e., March 4, 1953, the respondents were entitled to enforce the decree by execution and supply for possession being restored to them; at any rate they could apply for restitution under the inherent powers of the Court. Thus the High Court was of the opinion that though S. 15(2) of the At was no applicable to the proceedings they could be treated as execution proceedings. Against this judgment and order the appellants have come in appeal to this court by special leave.
3. Under S. 13 of the Act the respondents are protected against eviction excepting for the reasons given in the proviso. The appellants had filed the original suits for eviction under S. 13(1) proviso (g) which was as under :
Section 13(1) "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or any contract, no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any court in favour of the landlord against any tenant (including a tenant whose tenancy is terminated) :
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any suit or other proceeding for such recovery of possession if the C
