Back
2006 Supreme(Chh) 10
2006(3) C.G.L.J. 72
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Dhirendra Mishra, J.
JUGGADEVI
Vs.
SMT. SATYAWATI & OTHERS
Second Appeal Nos. 329 to 331 of 2005,
Decided on : 5-1-2006.
Shri H.S. Patel, for the Appellant.
Shri A.K. Pandey, for the Respondents 1(b) & 1(d) .
Shri G.S. Agrawal, Sr. Counsel with Shri Bharat Lal Sahu, for the Respondent No. 1-K.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant, having received symbolic possession, was entitled to receive rent from the tenants, highlighting the distinction between symbolic and actual possession and the rights of the landlord and tenant under the State Rent Act.
Headnote:
Rent Dispute - Landlord and Tenant - Section 25 of the Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 25 of the Act - The court discussed the entitlement to receive rent, ownership, and possession of the tenanted premises under the Act. It highlighted the definition of landlord as per section 2-b of the Act, the relationship between landlord and tenant, and the distinction between symbolic and actual possession. The court also considered the principles of estoppel and the rights of the landlord and tenant under the State Rent Act.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed applications under section 25 of the Act, seeking clarification on the entitlement to receive rent. The appellant, claiming ownership, received symbolic possession of the land in execution of a decree. The Rent Controlling Authority and the lower courts directed the tenant to pay rent to the respondent, the legal heirs of the previous owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant, having received symbolic possession, was entitled to receive rent from the tenants. It held that the lower courts' decisions in favor of the legal heirs of the previous owner were incorrect.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement to receive rent, ownership, and possession of the tenanted premises, as well as the validity of the lower courts' decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant, having received symbolic possession, was entitled to receive rent from the tenants. It emphasized the distinction between symbolic and actual possession, the definition of landlord as per section 2-b of the Act, and the rights of the landlord and tenant under the State Rent Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the lower courts were set aside. The court held that the appellant was entitled to receive rent from the tenants, and there was no order as to costs. The judgment debtor was also allowed to establish a claim for compensation in a court of competent jurisdiction with respect to the structure situated over the land.
As per Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. :-
1. The facts giving rise to this bunch of appeals are that respondent No.2 in all the three cases were inducted as tenant in the suit houses. They filed three separate applications under section 25 of the Act stating therein that they were inducted as tenant by one Lala Nemnath and the respondents 1-a to 1-k are the legal heirs of said Lala Nemnath who was entitled to receive rent. However, the appellant is also claiming that the rent is payable to him as he has received possession of the accommodation by the order of Civil Court and thus they have bona fide doubt as to who is entitled for rent. The land in question is situated at village Dhamtari bearing Khasra No. 816. The appellant preferred a civil suit No. 84-A/ 1985 against Lala Nemnath for declaration, possession and mesne profit which was dismissed by the trial Court. However, in appeal the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.1990 as per annexure A-I. Second appeal preferred by defendant Lala Nemnath Nanda was also dismissed by the High Court as per annexure A-2. Thereafter, said Lala Nemnath Nanda preferred S.L.P No. (C) No. 6070/1991 before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.4.1991 as per annexure A-3.
2. In execution proceedings symbolic possession of the suit land was delivered to the appellant. Thereafter, respondent No.2 moved an application under section 25 of the Act stating therein that they had bona fide doubt regarding the present entitlement to receive rent of the suit accommodation as Lala Nemnath Nanda and Jugga Devi, both are claiming the suit land to be their ownership and therefore, permission to deposit the rent in the Court for two months was sought and after ascertaining about the entitlement the same be paid to the claimant entitled and the receipt of such deposit be provided to them. Rent Controlling Authority issued notice to the appellant and Lala Nemnath Nanda on the above application. They submitted their reply along with the documents in support of their claim. However, the Rent Controlling Authority disposed of the applications preferred by the tenants by recording a finding that the appellant has been given only the symbolic possession of the suit house in execution of the decree in her favour which does not amount to delivery of actual possession and therefore she cannot be considered to be the owner of the tenanted premises and rather Lala Nemnath Nanda is entitled to receive the rent and accordingly, it was directed that the tenant shall continue to pay rent to said Lala Nemnath Nanda. The appeal preferred by the appellant has also been dismissed by recording the following findings :
(i) The appellant had filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession and mesne profit and the same has been decreed only with respect to delivery of vacant possession of the suit land and thus it can be held that the appellant's claim for mesne profit has been rejected:
(ii) Definition of the landlord as per section 2-b of the Act is exhaustive and therefore it is not necessary that the landlord is the real title holder and owner of the suit house and the one who is receiving the rent for a long time even if he is not the owner, may be considered the owner of the tenanted premises for the purpose of the Act:
(iii) The relationship between Lala Nemnath and the respondent No.2 is of the landlord and tenant of the house constructed over the suit land and since the suit of the appellant has been decreed for vacant possession of the suit land, in execution of the above decree, the executing Court could not have delivered the vacant possession of the suit house as it is against the spirit of the decree:
(iv) In proceedings under section 25 of the Act only the entitlement to receive the rent of the accommodation is decided and the ownership can be decided only by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
(v) Though the finding of the Rent Controlling Authority
