Back
1973 Supreme(Del) 19
High Court Of Delhi
VIDYA WATI - Appellant
Versus
TAKEN DASS - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 4 of 1973
Decided On : 01/19/1973
K.L.ARYA
A person who claims to be the real tenant of the landlord has an 'independent title' within the meaning of the proviso to section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and cannot be evicted under an order obtained against another person.
Headnote:
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 25 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - PERSONS LIABLE TO BE EVICTED - INTERPRETATION OF 'INDEPENDENT TITLE' - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - SECTION 50(4) - CONSTRUCTION.
Fact of the Case:
Pishori Lal was the tenant of the landlord Takan Dass. Pishori Lal died in 1957, leaving behind his widow Vidyawanti and three sons, including Tarlochan Lal. In 1964, the landlord filed an eviction petition against Tarlochan Lal alone, alleging that he was the sole tenant. Tarlochan Lal obtained an order for eviction against him, which was upheld on appeal. Vidyawanti filed a civil suit for injunction, claiming that she and the other heirs of Pishori Lal were the real tenants and that the eviction order was not binding on them. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit. Vidyawanti then filed a revision petition in the High Court, which directed her to file an application under the proviso to section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the order for eviction obtained by the landlord against Tarlochan Lal was not binding on the other heirs of Pishori Lal, who were the real tenants of the premises. The court interpreted the word 'occupation' in section 25 to mean physical occupation without any interest in or title to the premises. The court also held that the word 'title' in the proviso to section 25 includes any interest in or right to property, including the title of a tenant. Therefore, a person who claims to be the real tenant of the landlord has an 'independent title' within the meaning of the proviso and cannot be evicted under an order obtained against another person.
Issues: 1. What persons are liable to be evicted from the premises for the possession of which the landlord has obtained an order against a tenant? 2. Whether a person asserting to be a tenant of the landlord can resist the execution of the order for eviction on the ground that the order was not passed against him or against any person from whom he derives his title? 3. Whether the question if such a person is a tenant or not has to be decided first by the Controller under the Act and ultimately by the civil court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order for eviction obtained by the landlord against Tarlochan Lal was not binding on the other heirs of Pishori Lal, who were the real tenants of the premises. 2. A person who claims to be the real tenant of the landlord has an 'independent title' within the meaning of the proviso to section 25 and cannot be evicted under an order obtained against another person. 3. The question of whether a person is a tenant or not is to be decided first by the Controller under the Act and ultimately by the civil court.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decisions of the Controller and the Tribunal were set aside, and the application of Vidyawanti made under the proviso to section 25 of the Act was sent back to the Controller for consideration on merits.
( 1 ) SINCE we are concerned primarily with the construction of section 25 and secondarily with that of subsections (1) and (4) of section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) it would be best to begin by reading these provisions which are as follows:-
"25. Vacant possession to landlord.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, where the interest of a tenant in any premises is determined for any reason whatsoever and any order is made by the Controller under this Act for the recovery of possession of such premises, the order shall, subject to the provisions of section 18, be binding on all persons who may be in occupation of the premises and possession thereof shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such persons therefrom : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who has an independent title to such premises. 50. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain matters.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to evicting of any tenant therefrom or to any matter which Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under this Act shall be granted by any civil court or other authority. (4) Nothing in sub-section (1), shall be construed as preventing a civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any premises to which this Act applies or any question as to the person or persons who are entitled to receive the rent of such premises. "
( 2 ) THE questions which arise for decision on the facts to be stated later are as below, namely :-
1. What persons are liable to be evicted from the premises for the possession of which the landlord has obtained an order against a tenant ? 2. Whether a person asserting to be a tenant of the landlord can resist the execution of the order for eviction on the ground that the order was not passed against him or against any person from whom he derives his title ? and 3. Whether the question if such a person is a tenant or not has to be decided first by the Controller under the Act and ultimately by the civil court ?
( 3 ) ONE Pishori Lal was the tenant of the landlord Takan Dass in respect of these premises. Pishori Lal died in 1957. His heire under the Hindu law are the widow Vidyawanti (appellant herein), three sons of which the eldest was Tarlochan Lal and three daughters. The landlord filed a petition for eviction in 1964 against Tarlochan Lal alone alleging that he alone was the tenant. In the eviction petition, no reference was made to the fact that the original tenant was Pishori Lal. Nor was any reference made to the fact that Pishori Lal had left heirs other than Tarlochan Lal. On April 12, 1967, the landlord obtained an order for eviction against Tarlochan Lal. The first and second appeals filed by Tarlochan Lal against the order for eviction. were dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court. Time to vacate the premises had been given to Tarlochan Lal till June 12, 1970. On May 7, 1970 another son of Pishori Lal filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against the landlord but the suit was dismissed, and the appeal and the revision against the dismissal also failed. The widow Vidyawanti then filed a civil suit against the landlord for injunction. It was averred that after the death of Pishori Lal, the tenancy was inherited by all his heirs including the widow Vidyawanti. As Tarlochan Lal did not pull on well with the other heirs, a partition took place by virtue of which Tarlochan Lal was allotted some other premises while the present premises fell to the share of the other heirs of Pishori Lal on September 9, 1958. The landlord was thus not justified in
