Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C.Lahoti : Ashok Bhan
Raichurmatham Prabhakar And Another
Versus
Rawatmal Dugar
Case No. : 2152-2153 of 1999
Date of Decision : 4/12/04
Advocates Appeared: D.V.Padma Priya : M.L.Lahoty : Pahan K.Sharma : Sushil Kumar : Jain : Pratibha Jain : Raichurmatham Prabhakar
A. A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Section 12 - A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, Rule 23- Two shops were on rent at monthly rent of Rs. 250/ -Eviction petition for demolition and Re-construction of new building- Petition allowed- Appeal filed by tenant dismissed-Tenant handed over possession to the landlord- The landlord gave an undertaking that on completion of re-construction of building the same will be offered to the tenants- After re-construction notice of offer given raising demand of rent at Rs. 2400/ each shop- No reply given by tenant- Tenant filed execution petitions to enforce undertaking- Petitions dismissed on the ground of limitation as they not filed within six months from the date of the appellate orders as required by Rule 23- High Court allowed the Revision Petitions, directing restoration of possession- Landlord asked to seek fair rent from Rent Controller- Held under Section 12, the lease does not come to an end, nor the tenancy is terminated, on delivery of for re-construction to the landlord; merely because the old building has been demolished and a new building has been erected-Rent shall stand revived- If the law permits a revision of rent or fixation of standard rent afresh, the landlord would be at liberty to invoke that provision and revise the rent consistently with such provisions. But the revision of rent cannot be insisted on by the landlord as a condition precedent to re-entry by the tenant.( paras 10 to 14 )
B. A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Section 12- Limitation Act, Article 137- A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, Rule 23 Limitation for restoration of possession- Possession of tenanted premises given to landlord on undertaking of restoration after re-construction- Application far restoration rejected on the ground of limitation- Not proper-If no time is fixed then Article 137 of Limitation Act will apply, which prescribes limitation of 3 years - Rule 23 of Rent Control Rules, 1961, does not govern limitation. 1995(5) SCC 5 relied. 1987(1) ALT 474, 1987(2) ALT 15 and 1992(3) ALT 181 overruled ( paras 14, 23 and 24 )
C. A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Sections 12, 4, 5 and 6 - Restoration of possession after alteration and improvement- Fair rent can be fixed again on an addition, improvement or alteration having been carried out- Section 5 permits revision of rent in cases of alterations, additions and repairs amount to improvements- A reconstruction carried out pursuant to order of Controller made under Section 12(1) of the Act is included within the meaning of the expression 'addition, improvement or alteration' which, has been used in wider sense- In such cases, it will be permissible to have the rent fixed consistently with the principles laid down in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 5. ( paras 19 and 20)
D. A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Section 12 - Tenant evicted on ground of demolition and reconstruction on the undertaking of landlord to offer possession after reconstructed - Tenant not replying - Held landlord cannot retain the building - He had to notify the vacancy in writing to the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 3 - The nature of user after reconstruction must remain the same as it was before-.[Para 17]
E. A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Section 12 - Demolition and Reconstruction - Eviction of tenant on ground of demolition and reconstruction- High Court allowing restoration of possession to tenant- In the meanwhile landlord leased the property to third person- held as to when and in what circumstances third persons have been inducted into possession of rebuilt building, are not known as the same were not discernible from the record-Before giving effect to the order of the High Court, the Controller directed to give notice to such third parties who are presently in possession and they shall have to be heard. [Para 25]
F. Interpretation of Statutes - Headings and Titles - Interpretation of- The view is now settled that the Headings or Titles prefixed to sections or group of sconflicting opinions have been expressed on the question as to what weight should be attached to the Headings or Titles.-According to one view, the Headings might be treated as preambles to the provisions following them so as to be regarded as giving the key to opening the mind of the draftsman of the clauses arranged thereunder- According to the other view, resort to Heading can only be taken when the enacting words are ambiguous-They cannot control the meaning of plain words but they may explain ambiguities.[Para 12]
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.
There are two cases relating to two premises, both being part of the same building, owned by the same owners but held on tenancy by two tenants. The two premises are described as Door Nos. 11-45-60 and 11-45-60/A situated at Thavvavari Street or Vijayawada. The tenants in the two premises were holding each at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- under the appellant-landlords. For convenience sake we would refer to the parties only as landlord and tenant.
2. The landlord initiated proceedings for recovery of possession over the tenancy premises alleging that the same were required bona fide by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing and such demolition was to be made for the purpose of erecting new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished, a ground contemplated under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter the act, for short). The landlord was successful in both the proceedings and vide the order dated 21.2.1986, the Rent Controller directed the two tenants to put the landlord in possession of the tenancy premises within one month from the date of the order. The tenants preferred appeals which were dismissed on 5.2.1987. The time appointed for compliance by the tenants was extended by one month. The tenants delivered possession over their respective shops to the landlord on 5.3.1987. The landlord gave an undertaking to the effect that on completion of the work of repairs and alteration etc. in the building the same will be offered to the tenants.
3. The work was completed by the landlord within six months. On 3.9.1987, the landlord sent an offer to reach of the two tenants to occupy the rebuilt premises subject to payment of Rs. 2400/- p.m. by each of the two tenants. The area of the two shops in question before renovation was 27ft. x 11 ft. = 297 sft. each. It appears that the building continues to be non-residential as before but it has undergone structural alterations of far-reaching character. It is clear from the description of premises contained in the offer in writing made by the landlord on 3.9.87, relevant parts whereof read as under:--
"You are aware that in my building D. No. 11-45-60/A in Tavvavari Street, Vijayawada-1, in front of the Room (which was leased to you previously), a new shop room measuring about 11 x 12 feet has been constructed with the concrete pillers, RRC roofing and iron shutter facing the northern side. The previous room which is now situated inside of this newly constructed shop room, is completely altered by removing the wooden door, window, walls, middle piller, arches and partition walls, and by putting new iron beams (girders) in the place of partition walls and by constructing new walls, by removing wooden beams (girders) in their places, by carrying out new cement planting to all walls, and raising height of the ground floor to one foot and putting new cuddappha stone slab flooring. All these rooms including newly constructed front shop room are being completely altered constructed with new additional constructions in order to make one big shop measuring about 40 x 11 feet with decent appearance as suitable for the offices, or wholesale shops.xx xx xx
I offer this newly constructed shop/hall (with iron shutter) measuring about 40 x 11 feet (including newly constructed front shop room) to you for lease for the rent of Rs. 2400/- Rupees two thousand four hundred only per month, and this rent is according to the market rate of the rents prevailing in this important business area."
4. The tenants did not reply. On 15.12.1987, the tenants filed two execution petitions seeking enforcement of the undertaking given by the landlord and recovery of possession to the tenants from the landlord. By order dated 6.1.1989, the executing Court directed the execution petitions to be dismissed solely on the ground that they were barred by limitation as they were filed on 15.12.1987 a
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
