The Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree in ejectment limited to the portion of the house used for residential purposes, where the premises are let for both residential and non-residential purposes.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 13 (1) (E) - PREMISES LET FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT FOR OCCUPATION AS RESIDENCE - COMPOSITE LETTING - JURISDICTION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a tenant, occupied a house in Delhi, a part of which was used for a girls' school and the rest for residential purposes. The respondent, the landlord, purchased the house and filed a suit for ejectment, claiming that he required the house bona fide for his own residence. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that a decree in ejectment could not be granted under Section 18 (1) (e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, as the house was let for both residential and non-residential purposes. The High Court, on revision, held that a decree in ejectment could be granted limited to the portion of the house used for residential purposes.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in holding that it had jurisdiction to pass a decree in ejectment limited to the portion of the house used for residential purposes. The Court held that Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act only applies when the premises are let for residential purposes, and not when the premises are let for composite purposes, such as residential and non-residential purposes. The Court further held that the contract of tenancy is a single and indivisible contract, and in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect, it is not open to the Court to divide it into two contracts-one of letting for residential purposes, and the other for non-residential purposes, and to grant relief under Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Act limited to the portion of the demised property which "is being used" for residential purposes.
Issues: Whether the Court has jurisdiction to pass a decree in ejectment limited to the portion of the house used for residential purposes, where the premises are let for both residential and non-residential purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court may be exercised under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act only when the premises are let for residential purposes and not when the premises being let for composite purposes, are used in specific portions for purposes residential and non-residential. The contract of tenancy is a single and indivisible contract, and in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect it is not open to the Court to divide it into two contracts-one of letting for residential purposes, and the other for non-residential purposes, and to grant relief under Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Act limited to the portion of the demised property which "is being used" for residential purposes.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge was restored.

Judgement

SHAH, J. :- The appellant Miss Sanyal has since 1942 been a tenant of a house in Western Extension Area Karol Bagh, New Delhi, a part of which is used for a Girls School and the rest for residential purposes. The respondent Gian Chand purchased the house from the owners by a sale deed dated September 19, 1956, and commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Delhi against the appellant for a decree in ejectment in respect of the house. Numerous grounds were set up in the plaint in support of the claim for a decree in ejectment, but the ground that the respondent required the house bona fide for his own residence alone need be considered in this appeal. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi dismissed an appeal from that order holding that the house being let for purposes nonresidential as well as residential, a degree in ejectment could not be granted under Section 18 (1) (e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The High Court of Punjab (Delhi Bench) in a revision petition filed by the respondent held that on the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court a decree in ejectment limited to that portion of the house which was used for residential purposes by the tenant could be granted, and remanded the case to the Rent Controller "for demarcating those portions which were being used for residence" and to pass a decree in ejectment from those specific portions of the house. Against that order the tenant has appealed to this Court.

2. It is necessary in the first instance to read the material provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The expression premises" is defined in Section 2 (g) of the Act as "any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose, and includes * * * Section 18 of the Act which grants protection to tenants against eviction provides insofar as it is material:

"(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 Court is satisfied-

* * * *

(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the land-lord who is the owner of such premises for occupation as a residence for himself or his family and that he has no other suitable accommodation;

Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, "residential premises include any premises which having been let for used as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes."

It is clear that Section 13 (1) imposes a ban upon the exercise of the power of the Court to decree ejectment from premises occupied by a tenant. The ban is removed in certain specific cases, and one such case is where the premises having been let for residential purposes the landlord requires the premises bona fide for occupation as a residence for himself or the members of his family and he has other suitable accommodation. It is plain that if the premises are not let for residential purposes, Clause (a) has an application nor on the express terms of the statute does the clause apply where the letting is for purposes residential and nonresidential.

3. In the present case the First Appellate Court held that the house was "let out for running a school and for residence." The High Court held that where there is a composite letting, it is open to the Court to disintegrate the contract of tenancy, and if the landlord proves his case of bona fide requirement for his own occupation to pass a decree in ejectment limited to that part which "is being used" by the tenant for residential purposes. In 90

Click Here to Read the rest of this document