VASHU DEO Vs. BALKISHAN
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
January 11,2002
VASHU DEO
Appellant
VERSUS
BALKISHAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH V. ADYANATH GHATAK [REFERRED 11.]RADHEYLAL V. RATANSINGH [REFERRED]
DAMADILAL VS. PARASHRAM [REFERRED 4.]
CHANDER KALI BAI VS. JAGDISH SINGH THAKUR [REFERRED 5.]
GIAN DEVI ANAND VS. JEEVAN KUMAR [REFERRED 3.]
D SATYAJNARAYANA VS. P JAGADISH [REFERRED 2.]
SHRI SAIN DASS FARNGU VS. SANT RAM JAISHI RAM [REFERRED 8.]
GAJADHAR LODHA VS. KHAS MAHATADIH COLLIERY CO [REFERRED 9.]
KEWAL RAM VS. MANGU MAL [REFERRED 7.]
BILAS KUNWAR VS. DESRAJ RANJIT SINGH [REFERRED]
CURRIMBHOY AND CO LTD VS. L A GREET [REFERRED 12.]
PUSARAM MANIKLAL IZARDAR VS. DEORAO GOPALRAO MALI (MINOR) BY GUARDIAN MOTHER PARWATI W/O. GOPALRAO [REFERRED 10.]
Cited Judgements :-
RAMANLAL VS. RUKMANI [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-8-52] [REFERRED TO]LRS OF IMAMUDIN VS. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE J D NO 1 BHILWARA AND PREM KISHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER VS. ANAND GANERIWAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-283] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND GANERIWAL AND ANOTHER VS. ANAND GANERIWAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
KAMINI KAPOOR VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKER SINGH VS. RAM PRAKASH [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-172] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH SINHA VS. LADLI TANDON [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-101] [REFERRED TO]
SITA DEBI KHIRWAL VS. MANDANLAL AGARWAL [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-2-153] [REFERRED TO]
HOLIDAY HOME VS. R P KAPUR HUF [LAWS(DLH)-2012-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
SKY LAND INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD VS. KAVITA P LALWANI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-489] [RELIED ON]
INDER MOHAN SINGH VS. SUBE SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-54] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGHAM VS. MADHAVAN [LAWS(KER)-2003-12-135] [REFERRED TO]
EXHIBITORS SYNDICATE LTD. VS. DALHOUSIE PROPERTIES LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2011-7-153] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR BHATTI AND ORS. VS. RAM LUBHAYA VERMA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-243] [REFERRED TO]
RUSSEL PROPERTIES AND ESTATES VS. INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2010-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
MERIDIAN MEDICAL PROJECTSN LIMITED VS. TILAK ENTERPRISES, A REGISTERED [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
GURU BUX SINGH VS. KHEM SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ LAL SHARMA VS. KANHAIYA LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2008-8-243] [REFERRED TO]
STAR TRACK AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. EFCALON TIE UP PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-108] [REFERRED TO]
WAQF KHUDA WAND TALA MASUMA WAQF AL AULAD HAJI MUSTAQ AHMAD VS. ARUN KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-217] [REFERRED TO]
SHARADA BAI VS. NAVRATAN VYAS [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-70] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH GUPTA VS. RANBIR B GOYAL [LAWS(SC)-2002-1-61] [REFERRED]
MOHD ISHAQ VS. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-187] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAN VS. SOUDHABI [LAWS(KER)-2002-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
T LAKSHMIPATHI VS. P NITHYANANDA REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2003-3-101] [REFERRED]
HAMEEDHA VS. DAYALAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-2-344] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR AJITSARIA VS. ON DEATH OF UTIN @ ATINDRA CHANDRA DAS HIS LEGAL HEIR SWAPAN DAS [LAWS(GAU)-2019-5-129] [REFERRED TO]
RISHI KUMAR VS. DAYA SHANKER DAUNESIA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-7-190] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH JHUNJHUNWALA VS. SAHA AND COMPANY [LAWS(CAL)-2023-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
AMALA PALIT VS. RATNA BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-2014-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT SINGH VS. KUMAR PAHILAJ [LAWS(DLH)-2006-4-147] [REFERRED TO]
PUR POLYURETHANE PRODUCTS P LTD VS. GEETA BHARGAVA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR JAISWAL VS. BIBI HUSN BANO [LAWS(SC)-2005-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN KUMAR VS. ASHOK VAIDHYA [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-12-98] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. RAJESH KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2005-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
HOLIDAY HOME VS. R P KAPUR HUF [LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-64] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD VS. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ANR. [LAWS(UTN)-2006-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR INDER SINGH SOKKI AND ORS. VS. GEETHA ENTERPRISES AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA MOHAN MATHUR VS. SARLA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2013-2-128] [REFERRED TO]
KUNDAN SINGH VS. LAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2004-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
WAQF ALLAH TALA MALIK ALAL AULAD VS. KRISHNA AUTAR [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYAWATI DHARMAVEER MADAN VS. NANDKUMAR SHANKARRAO SANE [LAWS(BOM)-2004-2-174] [REFERRED]
NIZAMUDDIN VS. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHARANPUR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-385] [REFERRED TO]
M L DAWAR VS. M L SETH [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-399] [REFERRED TO]
MASONIC CLUB VS. JAMNA LODGE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAL VS. RANBIR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-598] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR SAINI AND ORS. VS. RAM GOPAL MODI [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-12-113] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV RAI KAUSHAL VS. GOKAL CHAND MITTAL [LAWS(P&H)-2013-8-331] [REFERRED TO]
PODDAR PLANTATIONS LIMITED VS. THEKKEMARIVEETTIL MADHAVI AMMA [LAWS(KER)-2013-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SHOAIB VS. VAISHNAV DAS D [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-101] [REFERRED TO]
SACHINDRA NATH MITRA VS. RAM BHARAT PANDEY & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-2-46] [REFERRED TO]
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES P LTD VS. FEDERAL MOTORS P LTD [LAWS(SC)-2004-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
PARDEEP KUMAR VS. ASHWANI KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-11-216] [REFERRED TO]
RITA LAL VS. RAJ KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2002-9-45] [REFERRED]
SHRI ATUL SOODAN & OTHERS. VS. AJIT KUMAR & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
GOBIND RAM VS. KRISHAN LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2012-10-132] [REFERRED TO]
SH. AMARNATH (NOW DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. VS. SH. D.K. JAIN (NOW DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-343] [REFERRED TO]
JUGGA DEVI VS. SATYAWATI [LAWS(CHH)-2006-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KASHYAP VS. MOHINI NIJHAWAN [LAWS(P&H)-2003-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
Lavachandra Gaundalkar VS. Sitaram Atmaram Naik [LAWS(BOM)-2004-6-88] [REFERRED TO]
R RATHNASABHAPATHY CHETTIAR AND ORS VS. P LAKSHMINARAYANA BHATT; CORPORATION OF MADRAS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ARULMIGHU GANGADHARESWARAR KOIL DEVASTHANAM [LAWS(MAD)-2007-7-487] [REFERRED]
PRAKASH CHAND VS. SHANKER SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-142] [REFERRED TO]
S K SARMA VS. MAHESH KUMAR VERMA [LAWS(SC)-2002-9-23] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)The suit property consists of a shop. It forms part of a building owned by Sarvjanik Sampati Trust (hereinafter, the 'Trust', for short). On 1-1-1973 the shop was taken on rent by Balkishan, the plaintiff-respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. On 25-12-1975 Balkishan sub-let the shop to Vasudev, the defendant-appellant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. The suit shop is governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter the 'Act' for short).
(2.)The appellant fell into arrears of rent for the period 1-1-1981 to 31-12-1982. The respondent served a notice on the appellant and then filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent as also for eviction on the ground available under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. On 30-3-1983, the Trust also filed a suit for eviction, against its own tenant-the respondent, on the ground of unlawful sub-letting of the premises by the latter. That suit is still pending. In any case, the result thereof is not known. So far as the case before us is concerned, the defendant-appellant raised a dispute putting in issue the rate of rent at which the respondent could recover rent from the appellant submitting that the agreed rent was in excess of the standard rent and hence was not recoverable. Another plea taken by the defendant-appellant was that subsequent to the institution of suit on 30-3-1983 by the Trust against the respondent, the appellant has on 1-4-1983, directly attorned in favour of the Trust and entered into a direct tenancy agreement and therefore w.e.f. 1-4-1983, the right of the respondent to recover rent and secure eviction of the appellant had come to an end. On 25-7-1985, the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara passed an order under Section 13(3) of the Act determining provisionally the rate of rent at which the appellant was required to deposit rent in the Court. This order dated 25-7-1985 was put in issue by the appellant by filing an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge Bhilwara. Vide order dated 14-5-1992, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, and set aside the order of the trial Court, forming an opinion that in view of the appellant having attorned and entered into direct tenancy with the Trust, the respondent was not entitled to claim rent and recover possession from the appellant, and therefore, the suit filed by the respondent could not be treated as a suit for eviction, it remained only a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the period upto 31st March, 1983. The respondent preferred a Civil Revision Petition to the High Court which was resisted by the appellant placing reliance on a Single Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court in Kewal Ram vs. Mangu Mal, AIR 1974 Raj 201. When the Revision Petition came up for hearing before the learned Chief Justice of the High Court, he doubted the correctness of the decision in Kewal Ram's case and directed the petition to be placed for hearing before a Division Bench. By order dated 22-8-1996, the Division Bench has overruled the Single Bench decision in Kewal Ram's case and held that the relations, rights and obligations of the parties were governed by Section 13 of the Act and the sub-tenant (appellant herein) inducted by the tenant (respondent herein) could not directly attorn in favour of the Trust by excluding the principal tenant, and therefore, was bound to comply with the order of the trial Court under Section 13(3) of the Act. The appellant sought for a review of the order of the Division Bench which has been rejected by order dated 23-3-1998. These appeals have been filed impugning the orders dated 22-8-1996 and 23-3-1998 passed by Division Bench of the High Court.
(3.)The issue arising for decision is : whether a sub-tenant inducted by a tenant in the premises governed by the provisions of rent control law can, during the continuance of sub-tenancy and without vacating the premises, attorn in favour of the owner of the premises and thereby refuse to discharge his obligations towards the tenant who admittedly inducted him in the premises Strong reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant on a decision of this Court in D. Satyanarayana vs. P. Jagdish, AIR 1987 SC 2192 to which we will advert a little later.
(2.)The appellant fell into arrears of rent for the period 1-1-1981 to 31-12-1982. The respondent served a notice on the appellant and then filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent as also for eviction on the ground available under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. On 30-3-1983, the Trust also filed a suit for eviction, against its own tenant-the respondent, on the ground of unlawful sub-letting of the premises by the latter. That suit is still pending. In any case, the result thereof is not known. So far as the case before us is concerned, the defendant-appellant raised a dispute putting in issue the rate of rent at which the respondent could recover rent from the appellant submitting that the agreed rent was in excess of the standard rent and hence was not recoverable. Another plea taken by the defendant-appellant was that subsequent to the institution of suit on 30-3-1983 by the Trust against the respondent, the appellant has on 1-4-1983, directly attorned in favour of the Trust and entered into a direct tenancy agreement and therefore w.e.f. 1-4-1983, the right of the respondent to recover rent and secure eviction of the appellant had come to an end. On 25-7-1985, the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara passed an order under Section 13(3) of the Act determining provisionally the rate of rent at which the appellant was required to deposit rent in the Court. This order dated 25-7-1985 was put in issue by the appellant by filing an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge Bhilwara. Vide order dated 14-5-1992, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, and set aside the order of the trial Court, forming an opinion that in view of the appellant having attorned and entered into direct tenancy with the Trust, the respondent was not entitled to claim rent and recover possession from the appellant, and therefore, the suit filed by the respondent could not be treated as a suit for eviction, it remained only a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the period upto 31st March, 1983. The respondent preferred a Civil Revision Petition to the High Court which was resisted by the appellant placing reliance on a Single Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court in Kewal Ram vs. Mangu Mal, AIR 1974 Raj 201. When the Revision Petition came up for hearing before the learned Chief Justice of the High Court, he doubted the correctness of the decision in Kewal Ram's case and directed the petition to be placed for hearing before a Division Bench. By order dated 22-8-1996, the Division Bench has overruled the Single Bench decision in Kewal Ram's case and held that the relations, rights and obligations of the parties were governed by Section 13 of the Act and the sub-tenant (appellant herein) inducted by the tenant (respondent herein) could not directly attorn in favour of the Trust by excluding the principal tenant, and therefore, was bound to comply with the order of the trial Court under Section 13(3) of the Act. The appellant sought for a review of the order of the Division Bench which has been rejected by order dated 23-3-1998. These appeals have been filed impugning the orders dated 22-8-1996 and 23-3-1998 passed by Division Bench of the High Court.
(3.)The issue arising for decision is : whether a sub-tenant inducted by a tenant in the premises governed by the provisions of rent control law can, during the continuance of sub-tenancy and without vacating the premises, attorn in favour of the owner of the premises and thereby refuse to discharge his obligations towards the tenant who admittedly inducted him in the premises Strong reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant on a decision of this Court in D. Satyanarayana vs. P. Jagdish, AIR 1987 SC 2192 to which we will advert a little later.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.