COPAL DASS VERMA Vs. S K BHARDWAJ
LAWS(SC)-1961-5-11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
May 02,1961
GOPAL DASS VERMA
Appellant
VERSUS
S.K.BHARDWAJ
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
JASWANT SINGH VS. DAYA SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1966-1-4] [REFERRED TO]PARKASH CHANDER GUPTA VS. TARA CHAND MALIK [LAWS(DLH)-1967-12-6] [REFERRED]
T C RAKHI PROPRIETOR CENTRAL COURT HOTEL NEW DELHI VS. USHA GUJRAL LUCKNOW [LAWS(DLH)-1968-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
I D MALIK VS. DULI CHAND [LAWS(DLH)-1968-11-7] [REFERRED 2.]
RAM SAROOP VS. JANKI DASS JAI KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-1975-11-3] [REFERRED]
SHIV NATH SINGH VS. PIYARE LAL SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-1978-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
MUNSHI RAM SAKHUJA VS. RAM PARSHAD [LAWS(DLH)-1980-12-28] [REFERRED]
V B RAJU VS. R L MOHINDROO [LAWS(DLH)-1982-4-31] [REFERRED]
HARMOHAN DAS BAGAI VS. TARSERN PARKASH GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-1984-3-5] [REFERRED]
A N PAREEKH VS. N H NAQVI [LAWS(DLH)-1988-2-5] [REFERRED]
INDIAN PAPER MACHINARY AND ENGINEERING WORKS LIMITED VS. SARWARTH LAL JAINI [LAWS(DLH)-1988-5-7] [REFERRED]
PUSHPA WATI VS. MAHENDRA KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-1996-2-106] [REFERRED 2.]
N L GOEL VS. DALJIT KAUR [LAWS(DLH)-1999-8-131] [REFERRED TO]
B K DAWESAR VS. K K SAPRA [LAWS(DLH)-2005-5-148] [REFERRED TO]
DAHYABHAI MOTIRAM DECD VS. NATHUBHAI BHIMBHAI NAIK [LAWS(GJH)-1974-7-6] [CASES REFERRED]
DOLATRAI HARJIVAN BIBODI VS. KANTILAL SUKHLAL SHAH DR [LAWS(GJH)-1977-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMPANT SUSHEELA BAI VS. CHANDULAL T PARIKH [LAWS(APH)-1974-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
GANGADHARA SETTY VS. THIRUKAPPA SETTY [LAWS(KAR)-1985-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAMU VS. C H RAMAKRISHNA [LAWS(KAR)-1992-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
K R PADMAVATHY AMMAL DIED VS. E R MANICKAM [LAWS(MAD)-1980-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUKAR VISHNU SATHE VS. VITHOBA RAMJI THORAT SINCE DEAD [LAWS(BOM)-1991-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVARLAL SUKHLAL SONI VS. LAXMINARAYAN DEO PUBLIC TRUST [LAWS(BOM)-1994-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVARLAL SUKHLAL SONI VS. LAKSHMINARAYAN DEO PUBLIC TRUST SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR [LAWS(BOM)-1994-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
TARACHAND HASSARAM SHAMDASANI VS. DURGASHANKAR G SHROFF [LAWS(BOM)-2002-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
IRITTI CO OPERATIVE HOSPITAL SOCIETY VS. C C DAMODARAN [LAWS(KER)-2010-7-94] [REFERRED TO]
B N MUTTO VS. T K NANDI [LAWS(SC)-1978-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
S KARTAR SINGH VS. CHAMANLAL [LAWS(SC)-1969-3-42] [DISTINGUISHED]
BODDU NARAYANAMMA VS. VENKATARAMA ALUMINIUM CO [LAWS(SC)-1999-9-6] [DISTINGUISHED]
NILESH NANDKUMAR SHAH VS. SIKANDAR AZIZ PATEL [LAWS(SC)-2002-8-11] [REFERRED]
NAI BAHU VS. LALA RAMNARAYAN [LAWS(SC)-1977-10-23] [DISTINGUISHED]
VINOD KUMAR ARORA VS. SURJIT KAUR [LAWS(SC)-1987-7-52] [DISTINGUISHED]
A N KAPOOR VS. PUSHPATALWAR [LAWS(SC)-1992-1-99] [RELIED ON]
S WARYAM SINGH DUGGAL VS. SAVITRI DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-1983-4-20] [REFERRED]
SACHCHINDANAND GARG VS. GOVINDLALJIMAHARAJ NATHDWARA [LAWS(MPH)-1981-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
JAGITKUMAR VS. JAGDEESHCHANDRA [LAWS(MPH)-1982-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR BOSE VS. JAGABANDHU DHANG [LAWS(CAL)-2003-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
SACHHIDANAND GARG VS. GOVINDLALJI MAHARAJ [LAWS(MPH)-1981-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
M MATHEW PHILIPS VS. S RM S NARAYANA CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2006-4-255] [REFERRED TO]
DATTARAM DAULAT KODARE VS. SHANTABAI ZIMJI JAGTAP [LAWS(BOM)-2004-7-99] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALKRISHNA GANPAT GULVE VS. SHOBHACHAND RAYCHAND FIRODIYA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-1-133] [REFERRED TO]
DATTA DAU SHRAWALE VS. NAMDEO JALBAJI DIWEKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2011-1-75] [REFERRED TO]
HARI MITTAL VS. B M SIKKA [LAWS(P&H)-1985-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHANDRA VS. BHAJAN SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN NATH VS. HEERA CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD VS. CHHAGAN RAJ [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. LR'S OF DEV RAJ [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
SARLA DEVI GUPTA VS. TARA DEVI DUBEY [LAWS(CHH)-2007-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
NAGESH DATTATRAY HOMBALKAR VS. INDIRABAI NARAYAN VAZE [LAWS(BOM)-1996-6-160] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SONI VS. KAZI MOHAMMAD ATEEQUE RAHMAN [LAWS(MPH)-2012-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA KUMAR VS. KANKU BAI [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN DATTATRAYA UMBARKAR VS. LATE SHRI SHANKAR HIRIJI PANDYA [LAWS(BOM)-1992-11-102] [REFERRED TO.]
PRABHU CHAUDHARY VS. SHRI HIRA LAL KAPOOR [LAWS(DLH)-1985-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
Panjumal Daulat Ram VS. Sakhi Gopal [LAWS(MPH)-1976-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN GOPAL VS. LEKH RAJ [LAWS(P&H)-1969-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. JOGINDER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-95] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL AND ANOTHER VS. NANAK CHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1963-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
V. BALAKRISHNA MENON VS. M.A.K. GOVINDAN [LAWS(MAD)-1978-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
BATHOOL BAI VS. A.S. VAIDYANATHAN [LAWS(MAD)-1966-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
K.R. PADMAVATHY AMMAL AND ORS. VS. E.R. MANICKAM [LAWS(MAD)-1980-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
CEPCO INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VS. NARINDER PAL SINGH CHAWLA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-63] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL VS. NANAK CHAND [LAWS(SC)-1969-10-93] [REFERRED TO]
DHAN DEVI VS. KISHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER RESPONDENTS [LAWS(HPH)-1971-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
GOKULCHAND VS. KRISHNACHANDRA [LAWS(MPH)-1975-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
GANGASINGH VS. SMT. SARDARBAI [LAWS(MPH)-1987-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT LAL SETHI VS. GURBUX SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1970-3-33] [REFERRED]
SHIV NARAIN VS. KHUSHAL DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-1971-1-40] [REFERRED]
SAVITRI DEVI AMAR VS. A M BOSE [LAWS(DLH)-1972-7-18] [REFERRED]
GIAN CHAND VS. TULSI RAM [LAWS(P&H)-1964-12-39] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
Gajendragadkar, J. -
(1.)The appellant Dr. Gopal Das Varma owns a double-storeyed house known as 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The ground floor of this house consists of a block of offices and the first floor consists of four flats; three of these are in the occupation of the appellant while the fourth has been let out to respondent 1, Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Bharadwaj is an ear, nose, throat specialist, and in one of the four rooms of the flat he and his wife, respondent 2, reside, while the three other rooms are used by him for the purpose of his profession. Respondent 1 appears to have taken the premises on lease as early as 1934 although he executed an agreement of tenancy in favour of the appellant on November 8, 1935. This agreement shows that the appellant agreed to let out his flat to respondent 1 on a rent of Rs. 90/-per month payable in advance. The tenancy was to commence from October 1,1935, end was intended to continue up to September 30, 1936. Parties agreed that the said tenancy could be renewed on terms to be settled later. In fact the tenancy has been renewed from year to year and the flat is still in possession of respondent 1.
(2.)In October 1953 the appellant sued the two respondents for ejectment on two grounds. He alleged that he required the premises in question for occupation as residence for himself and for the members of his family and that respondent 1 had recently built a suitable residence for himself in Golf Link Area, New Delhi. The first plea was made under S. 13 (l)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act XXXVIII of 1952) (hereafter called the Act), while the second was raised by reference to S. 13(l)(h) of the Act. According to the appellant, since both the requirements of the Act were satisfied he was entitled to obtain a decree for ejectment against the respondents. The claim thus made by the appellant was denied by the respondents. Respondent 2 pleaded that she was not the tenant of the appellant and she alleged that it was she and not respondent 1 who had built the house in Golf Link Area. Respondent 1 admitted that he was a tenant under the appellant. He, however, contended that the appellant did not require the premises bona fide for his personal use, and he urged that he was using the premises for carrying on his medical profession and as such the appellant was not entitled to eject him. He supported his wife in her plea that the. house built in Golf Link Area belonged to her and not to him.
(3.)On these pleadings the learned trial judge framed appropriate issues. He found that respondent 1 alone was the tenant of the appellant and that the premises in question had been let to respondent 1 for residential purpose. According to the trial judge the premises in suit had been constructed for residential purposes and the flat in question was let out to respondent exclusively for that very purpose. The trial judge further held that the fact that a portion of the premises was used by respondent 1 for his profession or business would not make the tenancy one for non-residential purposes. In that view he rejected the argument raised by respondent 1 on the explanation to S. 13(1)(e) of the Act. The trial judge also held that it was respondent 1 who had built a house in Golf Link Area and since the said house was suitable for his residence the requirements of S. 13(1)(h) were satisfied. On the question about the bona fide requirements of personal residence pleaded by the appellant under S. 13(1)(e) the trial Court made a finding against him. Even so, as a result of his conclusion under S. 13(1)(h) the trial judge passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the appellant.
(2.)In October 1953 the appellant sued the two respondents for ejectment on two grounds. He alleged that he required the premises in question for occupation as residence for himself and for the members of his family and that respondent 1 had recently built a suitable residence for himself in Golf Link Area, New Delhi. The first plea was made under S. 13 (l)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act XXXVIII of 1952) (hereafter called the Act), while the second was raised by reference to S. 13(l)(h) of the Act. According to the appellant, since both the requirements of the Act were satisfied he was entitled to obtain a decree for ejectment against the respondents. The claim thus made by the appellant was denied by the respondents. Respondent 2 pleaded that she was not the tenant of the appellant and she alleged that it was she and not respondent 1 who had built the house in Golf Link Area. Respondent 1 admitted that he was a tenant under the appellant. He, however, contended that the appellant did not require the premises bona fide for his personal use, and he urged that he was using the premises for carrying on his medical profession and as such the appellant was not entitled to eject him. He supported his wife in her plea that the. house built in Golf Link Area belonged to her and not to him.
(3.)On these pleadings the learned trial judge framed appropriate issues. He found that respondent 1 alone was the tenant of the appellant and that the premises in question had been let to respondent 1 for residential purpose. According to the trial judge the premises in suit had been constructed for residential purposes and the flat in question was let out to respondent exclusively for that very purpose. The trial judge further held that the fact that a portion of the premises was used by respondent 1 for his profession or business would not make the tenancy one for non-residential purposes. In that view he rejected the argument raised by respondent 1 on the explanation to S. 13(1)(e) of the Act. The trial judge also held that it was respondent 1 who had built a house in Golf Link Area and since the said house was suitable for his residence the requirements of S. 13(1)(h) were satisfied. On the question about the bona fide requirements of personal residence pleaded by the appellant under S. 13(1)(e) the trial Court made a finding against him. Even so, as a result of his conclusion under S. 13(1)(h) the trial judge passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the appellant.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.