Davesh Nagalya (D) & Ors. vs Pradeep Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs. and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

10 August 2021

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 3477 of 2010

Result

Allowed

Bench

Hemant Gupta, A.S. Bopanna

Citation

[2021] 8 S.C.R. 184 : 2021 INSC 389

Headnote

Rent Control and Eviction:

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – s. 12(2) – Deemed vacancy of building in certain cases – Subsequent events – Death of both partners and no clause permitting continuation of the partnership by the legal heirs– Non-residential tenanted premises – Held: Is deemed to be vacant in law as the tenant is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building– U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 – Partnership Act – s. 42(c).

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 With the death of both partners and not having any clause permitting continuation of the partnership by the legal heirs, the non-residential tenanted premises is deemed to be vacant in law as the tenant is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. In view thereof, the order passed by the High Court in Review Application is set aside.[Para 14][193-F-G]

1.2 The order of permitting SC as partner with PK has come to an end by efflux of time and operation of law. In terms of section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, partnership stands dissolved by death of a partner. One of the partners i.e., PK died on 21.05.2004. The High Court has not taken note of such fact in the review petition and failed to take into consideration the subsequent events which were germane to the controversy. SC, the other partner also died during the pendency of appeal on 25.06.2014. It was represented to the District Magistrate by PK that SC is a divorcee and has no children but such assertion was not found to be correct as he had two children, a son and a daughter who were impleaded as his legal heirs.[Para 13][193-D-F]

1.2 The tenant is deemed to cease to occupy the premises in question. Consequently, the tenanted property has fallen vacant as well. The appellants may take recourse to remedy as may be available to them and may proceed in accordance with law and the provisions of the Act.[Para 15][193-G]

Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2000) 6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 376 : [2019]

3 SCR 411; Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770 : [1975] 3 SCR 958; Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P and Others (1995) 1 SCC 537 : [1995]

1 SCR 56 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in Review Application No.105/2008 on 23.04.2008 wherein the factum of death of Pradeep Kumar, the successor-in-interest of Tika Ram - the tenant, was not considered. The argument of the appellant was that the partnership between Pradeep Kumar and Subhash Chand, Respondent No.4 herein has come to an end automatically on the death of Pradeep Kumar on 21.05.2004. Therefore, tenancy also has come to an end in view of Section 12 (2) of U.P. Urba

View Subscription Plans →