Back
2009(6) Supreme 689
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by Lrs. & Anr. — Appellants
versus
National Engineering Industry Ltd. — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2005
Decided on : 17-09-2009
Facts of the Case :
Suit premises belonging to Sitaram Bhandar Trust was let out to appellant 2 by respondent, claiming that it was authorized by the Trust to do so herein in the instant case. Respondent collected rent for the same. However, thereafter, defendant 1 started paying rent to one R who claimed to be an employee of the Trust. Suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed by respondent against appellants alleging that appellants had committed default in payment of rent. Said suit was decreed by Trial Court. In appeal said decree was set aside by Single Judge of High Court, which order had been set aside by Division Bench by impugned order.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of Division Bench.
Findings of the Court :
Instantly respondent had not been able to show that it was authorized in writing to act on behalf of the Trust either by a power of attorney or any other written document. Unless there was some documentary proof that the Trust had authorized its agent to file a suit for eviction on its behalf, it could not be said that respondent had any right to file such a suit, even though it had actually let out premises to the appellant and collected rent. Respondent was admittedly not the owner of the premises, and only claimed to be the agent of Trust. In the facts and circumstances of the case, held that this aspect of the matter needed to be gone into by the Trial Court. Impugned judgment and order of Division Bench and that of Single Judge was set aside and matter was remanded back to Trial Court.
Result : Appeal allowed
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2005 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur whereby the learned Division Bench has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.08.2001 and restored that of the Trial Court, i.e., the Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 31.07.1993.
3. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellants-defendants and for deposit of arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court. In appeal the said decree was set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, which order has been set aside by the learned Division Bench by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
4. The facts in brief are that the suit premises admittedly belonged to Sitaram Bhandar Trust (hereinafter for short ‘the Trust’) and the Trust is the owner of the suit premises. The respondent, claiming that it was authorized by the Trust to do so, alleged that it had let out the premises in dispute to appellant No.2 (defendant No. 1 in the suit) and was collecting rent from it. However, thereafter, the defendant No. 1 started paying rent to one Ram Das Modani who claimed to be an employee of the Trust. The respondent then filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellants alleging that the appellants had committed default in payment of rent.
5. Under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, under Section 3(iii) the word ‘landlord’ has been defined as under:-
“landlord” means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant”.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were no arrears of rent as rent was being paid to Ram Das Modani, who was collecting rent on behalf of the Trust. Hence, he submitted that there was no default in payment of rent.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent company was the landlord and hence rent should have been paid to it and thus there was default in payment of rent. He further submitted that it was the respondent who had let out the premises and accordingly in terms of the Act it was entitled to receive rent.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are required to interpret the word ‘landlord’ as provided under the Act.
9. In our opinion a purposive, and not literal interpretation has to be given to the definition of ‘landlord’ in the Act.
10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rent statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorize any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word ‘landlord’, who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal Vs. Shri Hazara Singh, 1 1977 (2) RLR, 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of ‘landlord’ in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner, who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given.
11. In the present case the respondent has no
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
