Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.N. BHAGWATI; S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.*
Smt. Gian Devi Anand, Appellant
Versus
Jeevan Kumar and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3441 of 1972, D/- 1-5-1985.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 2(1), 2(1)(iii) - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 5(ii)(c), 14, 14(1)(a) - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1976 - Rent Act 1968 - Housing Finance Act, 1972 - Rent Act 1974 - English Rent Act, 1977 – Section 2 - Rajasthan Premises Act, 1950 - Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Act, 1915 - Housing Repairs and Rent Act, 1954 - Section 49(1) - Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Section 2(i), 14 - Landlord - Statutory Tenancy - Heirs - Possession of Premises - Question which arises here for consideration is as to whether statutory tenancy is heritable on death of the statutory tenant - Statutory tenant is not an expression to be found or rent control legislation of any other State - It is an expression coined by judges in England and, like many other concepts in English law, it has been imported into jurisprudence of this country and has become an expression of common use to denote a tenant whose contractual tenancy has been determined but who is continuing in possession of premises by virtue of protection against eviction afforded to him by rent control legislation - Though expression statutory tenant has not been used in any rent control legislation concept of statutory tenant finds recognition in almost every rent control legislation - Whether statutory tenancy is heritable on death of statutory tenant - Whether a statutory tenant has an estate or interest in premises which is heritable and no argument was advanced that a statutory tenancy - Whether before commencement of any eviction proceeding against him or during pendency of any eviction proceeding against him, heirs of deceased tenant do not enjoy protection afforded by Act to tenant - Whether heirs of statutory tenants had any heritable interest in demised premises - Whether on death of a statutory tenant his heirs succeed to tenancy so as to claim protection of Act - Whether respondents predecessors-in-interest retained a heritable interest in dispusted premises even after termination of their tenancy - Whether heirs of a deceased tenant whose contractual tenancy in respect of commercial premises has been determined - Whether in original Act or in amended Act, that tenant within meaning of definition of term in Act includes any person continuing in Possession after termination of his tenancy - Whether residential or commercial let out to any. tenant, is permitted by Rent Control Acts to seek eviction of tenant only on grounds specified in Act – Held, Wasti Ram enjoyed status of a tenant of premises in dispute even after determination of contractual tenancy and notwithstanding termination of contractual tenancy, Wasti Rain had an estate or interest in demised premises; and tenancy rights of Wasti Rain did not come to an end with his death but they devolved on heirs and legal representatives of Wasti Ram - Heirs and legal representatives of Wasti Ram step into his position and they are entitled to benefit and protection of Act – Court must, accordingly, hold that High Court was not right in coming to conclusion that heirs of Wasti Ram, the so called statutory tenant, did not have any right to remain in possession of tenanted premises and did not enjoy any protection under Act - A landlord may let out premises under various circumstances - Usually a landlord lets out premises when he does not need it for own use - Circumstances may change and a situation may arise when landlord may require premises let out by him for his own use - It is just and proper that when landlord requires premises bona fide for his own use and occupation, landlord should be entitled to recover possession of premises which continues to be his property in spite of his letting out same to a tenant - Legislature in its wisdom did recognise this fact and Legislature has provided that bona fide requirement of landlord for his own use will be a legitimate ground under Act for eviction of his tenant from any residential premises - This ground is, however, confined to residential premises and is not made available in case of commercial premises - A landlord who lets out commercial premises to a tenant under certain circumstances may need bona fide the premises for his own use under changed conditions in some future date should not in fairness be deprived of his right to recover commercial premises - Bona fide need of landlord will stand very much on same footing in regard to either class of premises, residential or commercial - Court, therefore, suggest that Legislature may consider advisability of making bona fide requirement of landlord a ground of eviction in respect of commercial premises as well - Order accordingly.
Judgment
BHAGWATI, J.:- I entirely agree with the judgment, just delivered by my learned brother. A. N. Sen, J. I am adding a few words of my own since I was a party to the decision in Ganpat Ladha v. Shashikant Vishnu Shinde (1978) 3 SCR 198: where certain observations were made which seem to take a different view from the one we are taking in the present case.
2. The question which arises here for consideration is as to whether statutory tenancy is heritable on the death of the statutory tenant. Statutory tenant is not an expression to be found in any provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 or the rent control legislation of any other State. It is an expression coined by the judges in England and, like many other concepts in English law, it has been imported into the jurisprudence of this country and has become an expression of common use to denote a tenant whose contractual tenancy has been determined but who is continuing in possession of the premises by virtue of the protection against eviction afforded to him by the rent control legislation. Though the expression statutory tenant has not been used in any rent control legislation the concept of statutory tenant finds recognition in almost every rent control legislation. The definition of tenant in Sec. 2(1) of the Delhi, Rent Control Act, 1958 - and I am referring here to the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 because that is the statute with which we are concerned in the present case - includes a statutory tenant. It says in clause (ii) that tenant includes any person continuing the possession after the termination of his tenancy. Such a person would not be a tenant under the ordinary law but he is recognised as a tenant by the rent control legislation and is therefore described as a statutory tenant as contra-distinguished from contractual tenant. The statutory tenant is, by virtue of inclusion in the definition of tenant, placed on the same footing as contractual tenant so far as rent control legislation is concerned. The rent control legislation in fact, as pointed out by this Court in a seven judge Bench decision in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (1980). 1 SCR 334 does not make any distinction between contractual tenant and statutory tenant. "It does not permit the landlord to snap his relationship with the tenant merely by his act of serving a notice to quit on him. In spite of the notice, the law says that he continues to be a tenant and he does so enjoying all the rights of a lessee. and is at. the same time deemed to be under all the liabilities such as payment of rent etc. in accordance with the law." The distinction between contractual tenancy and statutory tenancy is thus completely obliterated by the rent control legislation. Though genetically the parentage of these two legal concepts is different, one owing its origin to contract and the other to, rent control legislation, they are. equated with each other and their incidents are the same. If a contractual tenant has an estate or interest in the premises which is heritable, it is difficult to understand why a statutory tenant should be held not to have such heritable estate or interest. In one case, the estate or interest is the result of contract while in the other it is the result of statute. But the quality of the estate or interest is the same in both cases. The difficulty in recognising that a statutory tenant, can have estate or interest in the premises arises from the fact that throughout the last century and the first half of the present, almost until recent times, our thinking has been dominated by two major legal principles, namely, freedom of contract and sanctity of private property and therefore we are unable to readily accept that legal relationship can be created by statute despite want of contractual concensus and in derogation of property rights of the landlord. We are unfortunately not yet reconciled to the idea that the law is moving forward from contract to status.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
