Back
High Court Of Delhi
MOHAN LAL GOELA - Appellant
Versus
SIRI KISHAN - Respondent
Suit 532 of 1972
Decided On : 10/08/1977
AVADH BEHARI ROHATGI - TENANT - NOTICE OF TERMINATION - STATUTORY TENANT - HEIRS OF TENANT - RIGHT TO CONTINUE IN POSSESSION - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 (59 OF 1958) - AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 (18 OF 1976) - APPLICABILITY - LIMITED HERITABILITY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PREMISES - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - SECTION 50 OF THE ACT - SECTION 14 OF THE ACT - LIMITATION ACT - SECTION 14 - EXCLUSION OF PERIOD - PRELIMINARY DECREE FOR MESNE PROFITS - ORDER 20 RULE 12, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:
Shiv Pershad Gupta was the tenant of a shop in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He died in 1968, leaving behind a widow, two sons, and two daughters. The landlord, Mohan Lal Goela, filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the heirs of Shiv Pershad Gupta. The defendants raised various defenses, including the objection that the valuation of the suit was improper and that the civil courts had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court held that the valuation of the suit was proper and that the civil courts had jurisdiction. The defendants appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the valuation of the suit was proper and that the civil courts had jurisdiction to try the suit. The court also held that the heirs of Shiv Pershad Gupta did not inherit the tenancy rights in law. The court found that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended in 1976, conferred a right to continue in possession on certain heirs of a deceased statutory tenant, but that this right was limited to residential premises. The court held that the shop in question was a commercial premises and that the heirs of Shiv Pershad Gupta therefore did not have a right to continue in possession. The court also held that the landlord was entitled to a decree for possession and mesne profits.
Issues: 1. Whether the valuation of the suit was proper? 2. Whether the civil courts had jurisdiction to try the suit? 3. Whether the heirs of Shiv Pershad Gupta inherited the tenancy rights in law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The valuation of the suit was proper because the parties had agreed to a valuation of Rs. 51,000 and the court had ordered the plaintiff to make up the deficiency in court fees. 2. The civil courts had jurisdiction to try the suit because the suit was based on title and not on a claim for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 3. The heirs of Shiv Pershad Gupta did not inherit the tenancy rights in law because the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended in 1976, conferred a right to continue in possession on certain heirs of a deceased statutory tenant only in respect of residential premises.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decree for possession and mesne profits.
( 1 ) ONE Shiv Pershad Gupta was the tenant of shop No. 285 (old) 625 to 632 (new) in Chandni Chowk, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 270. 00. He died on July 30, 1968, leaving behind him a widow, two sons and two daughters.
( 2 ) THE landlord Mohan Lal Goela on November 2, 1968 brought a suit for possession and mesne profits in the court of the Commercial Sub Judge against Anchibai the widow of Shiv Pershad Gupta, his two sons Sri Kishan and Shiv Shankar and his two daughters. While the suit was pending in the court- of the Commercial Sub Judge Anchi Bai died on September 15,1974- The plaint was amended. Her name was deleted from the array of parties. The suit continued against the sons and E daughers of Shiv Pershad the original tenant.
( 3 ) THE defendants raised the objection regarding the valuation of the suit. Finally the parties agreed that the valuation of the property be fixed at Rs. 51,000. 00. The court accordingly made an order fixing - Rs. 51,000. 00 as the valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. This was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court. On December II, 1972, the court returned the plaint. On that very date the plaint was refiled in this court.
( 4 ) THE plaintiff Goela has instituted the suit on the allegation that Shiv Pershad Gupta the husband of Anchi Bai and the father of the above mentioned four children was the tenant and his tenancy was determined by a notice of termination dated March 17, 1964. It is said that thereupon Shiv Pershad become a statutory tenant.
( 5 ) HERE I may usefully refer to an earlier proceeding which figures prominently in this litigation. After service of notice of termination of tenancy an eviction petition was filed on August 22, 1964 by the landlord against Shiv Pershad Gupta before the Rent Controller. That petition was founded on two grounds : (1) non-payment of rent and (2) sub-letting of premises. The Additional Controller by his order dated March 12, 1968 dismissed the petition. Rent was paid. Therefore, that ground did not survive. Subletting was held not proved.
( 6 ) AGAINST the order dismissing the petition the landlord went in appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. On May 7, 1968 the appeal was filed. As it happened the tenant Shiv Pershad died on July 30, 1968. The landlord therefore withdrew the appeal on September 12, 1968. His counsel made a statement before the Tribunal that as nothing developed on the heirs of the tenant he would like to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
( 7 ) ON November 2, 1968, the present suit for possession and mesne profits was brought, as I have said. The plaintiff s case in the plaint is that Shiv Pershad Gupta was his tenant, that his tenancy was terminated by a notice to quit, that as Shiv Pershad became a statutory tenant his heirs have no right to remain in possession of the premises. It is said that the defendants possession being unauthorised the landlord is entitled to a decree for possession and mesne profits. This in substance is the claim.
( 8 ) THE defendants contest the suit on a variety of grounds. The principal defence is that the defendants being the heirs of Shiv Pershad Gupta have inherited the tenancy and are entitled to continue as tenants. Other defences have also been raised. The defendants defence is reflected in the following issues framed on August 20, 1975.
1. Whether the plaint is properly valued for purposes of courtfee and jurisdiction? 2. Can the defendants challenge the valuation in view of the agreed valuation fixed by the Court of Commercial Subjudge, Delhi? 3. Had the tenancy of Shri Shiv Pershad Gupta been terminated, if so, its effect ? 4. Was Smt. Anchi Bai tenant of the plaintiff ? 5. Is the plea of the defendants covered by issue No. 4 barred by principles of res Judicata? 6. Was any tenancy created by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants after the death of Shri Shiv Pershad Gupta? 7. At what rate is th
AI
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
