Back
1992 Supreme(All) 624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. R. Singh, J.
MAHENDRA PAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
2nd ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 2791 Of 1989
Decided On : 11/03/1992
K.M.Dayal, L.P.NAITHANI, M.M.Ghildiyal, SUDHIR CHANDRA, T.P.SINGH, TARUN AGARWAL`
Headnote:
The court held that the application for eviction of the tenant moved under S. 21 of the Act was not maintainable in view of the fact that it was filed within three years of the purchase of the premises by the respondent-landlord from its erstwhile owner M/s. Nahar Singh Kishan Chand and before expiration of six months notice contemplated by the 1st proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act. The court also held that the requirement of giving six months notice to the tenant is a condition precedent to the institution of the application for release on grounds mentioned in S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The expression before such application occurring after the expression landlord has given notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months is significant. It is deducible from the said expression that the Legislature has left some words after the expression before such application to be understood and supplied by the courts. The comprehended words in my judgment are is filed or is moved or is instituted. The complete expression in my opinion should be unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such application (acquisition) and the landlord has given notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months before such application is filed/moved/instituted. If the words is entertained are read after the expression before such application, the sentence would turn out to be grammatically incorrect inasmuch as the word entertained has already been used in the preceding part of the proviso and its repetition after the expression before such application would impart grammatical imperfection to the sentence. That apart, the object of giving notice would be defeated if it is held otherwise. The notice contemplated by the first proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act cannot be a casual or oral request to the tenant, but a formal demand, ordinarily in writing and clearly insisting on vacant possession after the requisite period.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent No. 3 moved a petition under S. 21 of the Act before the Prescribed authority/civil Judge, Dehradun (Mussoorie) praying for an order of eviction of the petitioner mahendra Pal Singh from the building in question. The eviction was sought on the ground that the respondent-landlord was due to retire from service of the Indian Army from the post of colonel on 31-7-1982 and he had to vacate his official residence by Sept 30, 1982. He wanted the accommodation in question to run a Lodging house business therein to augment his income necessary to meet the ever-rising prices and to maintain the status and living standard of the family which he enjoyed during the course of his service and also to meet the education expenses of his growing children and later on to settle them in life.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application for eviction of the tenant moved under S. 21 of the Act was not maintainable in view of the fact that it was filed within three years of the purchase of the premises by the respondent-landlord from its erstwhile owner M/s. Nahar Singh Kishan Chand and before expiration of six months notice contemplated by the 1st proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act. The court also held that the requirement of giving six months notice to the tenant is a condition precedent to the institution of the application for release on grounds mentioned in S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The expression before such application occurring after the expression landlord has given notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months is significant. It is deducible from the said expression that the Legislature has left some words after the expression before such application to be understood and supplied by the courts. The comprehended words in my judgment are is filed or is moved or is instituted. The complete expression in my opinion should be unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such application (acquisition) and the landlord has given notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months before such application is filed/moved/instituted. If the words is entertained are read after the expression before such application, the sentence would turn out to be grammatically incorrect inasmuch as the word entertained has already been used in the preceding part of the proviso and its repetition after the expression before such application would impart grammatical imperfection to the sentence. That apart, the object of giving notice would be defeated if it is held otherwise. The notice contemplated by the first proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act cannot be a casual or oral request to the tenant, but a formal demand, ordinarily in writing and clearly insisting on vacant possession after the requisite period.
Issues: 1. Whether the application for eviction of the tenant moved under S. 21 of the Act was maintainable in view of the fact that it was filed within three years of the purchase of the premises by the respondent-landlord from its erstwhile owner M/s. Nahar Singh Kishan Chand and before expiration of six months notice contemplated by the 1st proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act? 2. Whether the requirement of giving six months notice to the tenant is a condition precedent to the institution of the application for release on grounds mentioned in S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the application for eviction of the tenant moved under S. 21 of the Act was not maintainable in view of the fact that it was filed within three years of the purchase of the premises by the respondent-landlord from its erstwhile owner M/s. Nahar Singh Kishan Chand and before expiration of six months notice contemplated by the 1st proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act. 2. The court also held that the requirement of giving six months notice to the tenant is a condition precedent to the institution of the application for release on grounds mentioned in S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The expression before such application occurring after the expression landlord has given notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months is significant. It is deducible from the said expression that the Legislature has left some words after the expression before such application to be understood and supplied by the courts. The comprehended words in my judgment are is filed or is moved or is instituted. The complete expression in my opinion should be unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such application (acquisition) and the landlord has given notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months before such application is filed/moved/instituted. If the words is entertained are read after the expression before such application, the sentence would turn out to be grammatically incorrect inasmuch as the word entertained has already been used in the preceding part of the proviso and its repetition after the expression before such application would impart grammatical imperfection to the sentence. That apart, the object of giving notice would be defeated if it is held otherwise. The notice contemplated by the first proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act cannot be a casual or oral request to the tenant, but a formal demand, ordinarily in writing and clearly insisting on vacant possession after the requisite period.
Final Decision: The petition fails and is dismissed. Interim order stands discharged. Parties to bear their own cost. This order will govern the fate of the connected writ petitions.
( 2 ) THE matrix of the facts, in so far as it may be found relevant for the purposes of discussion of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, is set out as below. Late Sri K. R. Bahuguna, father of the respondent No. 3 was, admittedly, the owner and landlord of the building in question, He sold the building to one M/s. Nahar Singh, Kishan Chand by means of a registered sale deed dated 27-10-1958 but at the same time, an agreement of reconveyance was entered into between the Vendor and the Vendee, according to which the right to get the property reconveyed on payment of Rs. 20,000/- at any time in a span of six years, was reserved with the Vendor, Sri K. R. Bahuguna. It appears that Sri K. R. Bahuguna was not in a position to get the property reconveyed in terms of the agreement of reconveyance dated 27-10-1958 within the stipulated period. However, before expiry of the period of six years specified in the agreement for reconveyance dated 27-10-1958, a fresh agreement for sale was entered into between M/s. Nahar Singh Kishan Chand and Sri K. R. Bahuguna on 24-10-1964. The sale consideration, according to this agreement, was Rs. 30,000/- out of which, a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid by way of earnest money to M/s. Nahar Singh and Kishan Chand and the balance amounting to Rs. 29,500/- was decidedly agreed to be paid by Sri K. R. Bahuguna to M/s. Nahar singh Kishan Chand at the time of registration. According to the said agreement, Sri K. R. Bahuguna was bestowed the right to get the sale deed executed in his favour in terms of the agreement at any time within a span of eight years, failing which, the agreement stipulates, he was to forfeit the earnest money of Rs. 500/-and in addition thereto, he was to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to M/s. Nahar Singh Kishan Chand.
( 3 ) IT transpires from the record that M/s. Nahar Singh Kishan Chand were not willing to execute the sale-deed despite notice, whereupon a suit, it being suit No. 122 of 1971 was instituted by Sri k. R. Bahuguna against M/s. Nahar Singh Kishan Chand impleading therein its proprietors for specific performance of contract for sale. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 9-2-1978 in terms of a compromise according to which the sale consideration was raised to Rs. 40,000/-from Rs. 30,000 / - as agreed upon between the parties. Entire sale consideration was paid to the defendants M/s. Nahar Singh Kishan Chand and others at the time of the, very execution of the compromise on 9-2-1978 but they failed to execute the sale deed in terms of the decree, whereupon the sale-deed was executed by the court on 12th Day of June 1979. According to the sale deed, Sri K. R. Bahuguna became entitled to receive rent from 1-4-1978.
( 4 ) THE other development that took place in between period is that M/s. Nahar Singh Kishan chand, the erstwhile owner of the building in question, filed a suit, it being suit No. 6 of 1965 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the then tenant Sri Ravindra Nath Malhotra. The suit was decreed on 22-6-1965 and decree was maintained by the High Court, vide judgment and decree dated 2-3-1967; dismissing the appeal preferred against the jud
