Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Satender Jain - Appellant
Versus
Satya Narain Sanjiv Gupta Huf - Respondent
RSA 139 of 2019
Decided On : 09-09-2021
Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956) - Ejectment - [Flat No.3677, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-06] - [Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956)] - [Section 19] - The court held that the provisions of Section 19 of the Slums Act would be applicable only to tenants-in-law and not to occupiers generally. The heirs of the original tenant were not entitled to protection under Section 19. The objection under Section 19 is one that can be waived by the tenant if the same is either not pleaded or the tenant's conduct disentitles him to the said defence. The Defendant, being an unauthorized occupant, was not entitled to protection under Section 19. The cross objections were fully considered and dealt with by the Appellate Court. The interest on mesne profits was waived off by the Plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought ejectment of the Defendant from the suit property, Flat No.3677, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-06, and mesne profits. The Defendant, as the heir of the original tenant, continued to remain in occupation after the termination of the tenancy. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the heirs of the original tenant were unauthorized occupants. The Appellate Court allowed the Plaintiff's appeal, granting a decree of possession and damages for unauthorized use and occupation to the Plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Defendant, being an unauthorized occupant, was not entitled to protection under Section 19 of the Slums Act. The cross objections were fully considered and dealt with by the Appellate Court. The interest on mesne profits was waived off by the Plaintiff. The Defendant was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff on or before 30th November, 2021.
Issues: The issues included the requirement of permission under Section 19 of the Slums Act, consideration of cross objections by the Appellate Court, and interest on mesne profits.
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of Section 19 of the Slums Act would be applicable only to tenants-in-law and not to occupiers generally. The objection under Section 19 is one that can be waived by the tenant if the same is either not pleaded or the tenant's conduct disentitles him to the said defence. The cross objections were fully considered and dealt with by the Appellate Court. The interest on mesne profits was waived off by the Plaintiff.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed off with the direction that the Defendant shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff on or before 30th November, 2021, failing which the Executing Court shall proceed in accordance with law. All statutory charges till 30th November, 2021 were to be duly cleared by the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition arises out of impugned judgment and decree dated 9th May, 2019 of the Id. Court of Additional District Judge (Central), Delhi {hereinafter "Appellate Court") by which the appeal filed by the owner/landlord/Respondent {hereinafter "Plaintiff") had been allowed. The said appeal arose out of judgment/decree dated 8th March, 2018 by which the Id. Court of Civil Judge (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi {hereinafter "Trial Court") had dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiff.
3. The premises in question is Flat No.3677, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-06 {hereinafter "suit property"). The same was let out by the Plaintiff to Shri Roshan Lal, the sole proprietor of M/s Steel and Metal Stores. The said tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 14th March, 1973 w.e.f. 30th April, 1973. According to the Plaintiff, the tenant had become a statutory tenant post the said notice as of April, 1973. After the death of Mr. Roshan Lal, his wife - Mrs. Premwati had inherited the tenancy but after her death, the children of Mr. Roshan Lal {hereinafter "Defendant") continued to remain in occupation. In the suit, the Plaintiff prayed for ejectment of the Defendant from the suit property and mesne profits. The prayers are as under:-
"a. decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for ejectment of the suit property bearing flat no.3677, Chawri Bazar, Delhi consisting of 3 rooms open courtyard covered Veranda, bath and W.C. with attached accommodation on first floor as Barsati made of iron sheets on all sides including its room, open terrace on second floor as shown red in the site plan.
b. a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs. 105907/- as damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property by the defendant.
c. Any other or further relief in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. "
4. The written statement was filed by the Defendant and various defenses were taken after recording evidence in the matter. In the suit, the following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of ejectment in respect of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a damage for a sum ofRs. 1,05,907/-, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
4. Relief."
5. Vide judgment dated 8th March, 2018, the Id. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The findings of the Id. Trial Court are as under:-
"It is the admitted case of the parties that for the purposes of securing the decree for ejectment as per Section 2(L) of DBC Act, 1958 on the ground that original tenant was served with the notice of ejectment and the present occupier of the suit property was not financially dependent on the original tenant at the date of death of the original tenant, the following ingredients are needed to be proved':-
1. Firstly, relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant.
2. Secondly, the premises was let. Out for residential purposes.
3. Thirdly, the contractual tenancy of the residential premises was duly terminated by notice iin writing as provide under the provision of TPA 1882.
4. Fourthly, the persons specified under Section 2(L) must be those who were residing with the deceased tenant and also was financially dependent upon the deceased tenant at the time of his death.
xxx
22. On the basis of above discussion, though it can be safely said that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and Late Sh. Roshan Lal and also that suit property was let out for residential purposes and also the fact that a notice under Section 106 TP Act, 1882 has been served to the defendant for termination of tenancy, however, the fact of present defendant not fina
The provisions of Section 19 of the Slums Act apply only to tenants-in-law and can be waived by the tenant if not pleaded or if the tenant's conduct disentitles him to the said defence.
Tenants under eviction orders maintain protection under S.19 of the Slum Areas Act, requiring necessary permissions for eviction proceedings.
An application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, could not be treated as res judicata as same are applicable only to findings which are given after a full-fledged trial.
Tenancy rights under a Will cannot override specific contractual terms prohibiting assignment without consent, rendering unauthorized occupation invalid under the Public Premises Act.
The court clarified the applicability of Section 50 of the DRC Act and the conditions under Explanation II to Section 2(l)(iii) in determining the rights of tenants and unauthorized occupants.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to ensuring lower courts adhered to legal standards, without reassessing evidence as in an appellate court.
The Slum Areas Act governs tenement transfer, retaining jurisdiction over properties even after 10 years, requiring authority permission for transfer, thereby affirming lawful eviction for unauthoriz....
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
