1. Tenant died during eviction revision; legal representatives sought to set aside abatement and be brought on record. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1967
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N.Phukan : S.S.M.Quadri
Bhajrangalal Agarwal
Versus
Channappa Hatpaki
Case No. : 7155 of 1998
Date of Decision : 12/5/00
Important Points
Under the relevant Rent Control Act, tenancy rights for both residential and commercial premises are heritable in the absence of contrary provisions, allowing legal representatives to prosecute eviction proceedings.
Subject
Civil Law - Landlord and Tenant
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rent Control Act - Section 3(r) - Heritability of tenancy - Non-residential premises - Right of legal representatives to prosecute eviction proceedings - Tenancy rights in both residential and commercial premises are heritable in the absence of contrary provisions in the Act. (Paras 5 and 6)
(B) Condonation of Delay - Application to set aside abatement and bring legal representatives on record - Sufficient cause - Lack of knowledge regarding the pendency of proceedings before the High Court constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A tenant of non-residential premises was ordered to be evicted. While a revision petition was pending before the High Court, the tenant passed away. The legal representatives filed applications to set aside the abatement and be brought on record with a delay of 95 days. The High Court declined to condone the delay and held that tenancy for non-residential premises is not heritable, thus the legal representatives had no right to be party to the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the legal representatives had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the applications. Additionally, it held that the view that tenancy of non-residential premises is not heritable is not good law, as tenancy rights for both residential and commercial premises are heritable under the relevant Rent Control Act.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the application to bring legal representatives on record should be condoned and whether the right of tenancy in respect of non-residential premises is heritable.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of any contrary provisions in the Rent Control Act, tenancy in respect of non-residential premises is heritable. Tenancy rights in both residential and commercial premises are passed to the legal heirs.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Condonation of Delay - Application to set aside abatement and bring legal representatives on record - Sufficient cause - Lack of knowledge regarding the pendency of proceedings before the High Court constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A tenant of non-residential premises was ordered to be evicted. While a revision petition was pending before the High Court, the tenant passed away. The legal representatives filed applications to set aside the abatement and be brought on record with a delay of 95 days. The High Court declined to condone the delay and held that tenancy for non-residential premises is not heritable, thus the legal representatives had no right to be party to the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the legal representatives had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the applications. Additionally, it held that the view that tenancy of non-residential premises is not heritable is not good law, as tenancy rights for both residential and commercial premises are heritable under the relevant Rent Control Act.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the application to bring legal representatives on record should be condoned and whether the right of tenancy in respect of non-residential premises is heritable.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of any contrary provisions in the Rent Control Act, tenancy in respect of non-residential premises is heritable. Tenancy rights in both residential and commercial premises are passed to the legal heirs.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Tenant's legal representatives argued delay due to lack of knowledge; landlord contested abatement and claimed non-heritability of tenancy. (Para 3 )
3. The High Court incorrectly held that tenancy of non-residential premises under the Karnataka Rent Control Act is not heritable. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Tenancy rights for non-residential premises under the Karnataka Rent Control Act are heritable in the absence of contrary provisions. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside; revision restored to High Court file for disposal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
6. Are tenancy rights for non-residential premises heritable under the Karnataka Rent Control Act?
Yes, in the absence of contrary provisions, tenancy rights for both residential and commercial premises are heritable under the Act. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Can delay in filing an application to set aside abatement be condoned if sufficient cause is shown?
Yes, the court may condone delay if the legal representatives show sufficient cause, such as lack of knowledge about the pending proceeding. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT
S.N.PHUKAN, J.
(1) LEAVE is granted.
(2) APPELLANTS 1(a) to 1(e) are the legal representatives of appellant no. 1, late Bhajrangalal Agarwal, who died during the pendency of the revision before the High Court. He had obtained on rent the suit premises, a non-residential building, of which late Channappa Hatpakki, respondent no. 1 was the landlord. His legal representatives are respondents 1(a) to 1 (d). The appellants have challenged the legality of the order of the High Court passed in Civil Petition No. 162 of 2000 dated February 23, 2000 in this appeal. (Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as tenant and the landlord).
(3) THE tenant had suffered an order of eviction from the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Hubli in H.R.C.No. 254 of 1983 dated March 7, 1987. Against the said order, he filed a revision before the First Additional District Judge, Dharwad being Revision (Rent No. 49/87). It was dismissed on October 21, 1992. It was against that order that the aforementioned revision was filed by the tenant before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision petition, the tenant, revision petitioner, died on April 19, 1999. The revision stood abated for the legal representatives of the tenant were not brought on record within the period of limitation. Appellants 1 (a) to 1 (e) filed applications to set aside abatement and to bring them on record as the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. There was delay of 95 days in filing the said applications. The explanation for the delay was that they had no knowledge that the business premises in which their father was carrying on the business was the subject matter of revision before the High Court and that as soon as they came to know of it on 9.12.99 when they were brought on record in the execution petition filed by the landlord, they made further enquiries, took necessary steps and filed the applications on January 9, 2000. There was thus a delay of 95 days in filing the applications. The High Court by the impugned order, declined to condone the delay and also held that in case of non-residential premises the legal representatives had no right to come on record.
(4) INSOFAR as the condonation of delay is concerned, in our view, the tenants/appellants have shown sufficient cause to justify condonation of delay and accordingly we set aside the order of the High Court on that aspect and condone the delay of 95 days.
(5) IN view of the judgment of this Court in Gantusa H. Baddi v. Meerabai G. Pai reported in [JT 2000 (5) SC 277 = 2000 (4) SCC 586], holding that the view expressed by the Karnataka High Court that the legal representatives of a non-residential premises have no right to prosecute the eviction proceedings is not a good law. The second ground in the impugned order cannot also be sustained. This Court held as follows:
"THE provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act directly came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Narayan Gadskari v. Paralal Baladev Uza. Relying upon the aforesaid Constitution Bench decision and bearing in mind the definition of "tenant" in Section 3(r) of the Karnataka Act, the Court held that the tenant continues to have an estate or interest in the tenanted premises and the tenancy rights both in respect of residential premises and commercial premises are heritable. In the latter decision in Venkatesh Thimmaiah case neither the decision of the Constitution Bench, referred to supra, has been noticed nor the earlier two Judge Bench decision of this Court on the provisions of the Karnataka Act has been noticed and relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court, without any analysis of the provisions of the Act, the conclusion of the forums below that the premises in question being non-residential, the right of tenancy therein is not heritable has been upheld. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench as well as the
