Landlord-Tenant Dispute: Rent control legislation – Protection under – Maintainability of suit for possession – In the instant case, by virtue of a Will, the testator bequeathed his property to his son subject to a right of residence to his widowed daughter – The daughter was given a life interest in the suit property and right to spend income from rent on herself – However, as per the Will, she was not entitled to transfer, mortgage, sell or gift the property – Whether with the death of the widowed daughter, the tenant would become a trespasser on the property and liable to be removed in consequence of the decree for possession – Held: The life estate granted to testator’s daughter enabled her to create a tenancy and receive rent from the tenant on the property – She fulfilled the description of a ‘landlord’ under s.2(c) of the 1949 Act – Therefore, after her death, the tenant is entitled to statutory protection – That status could not be disrupted or brought to an end except on grounds specified in the enactment – A suit for possession on the basis that the tenant was a trespasser after the death of testator’s daughter was, therefore, not maintainable – The remedy of the appellants (grandson and great grandson of testator) was to pursue eviction proceedings on the grounds contemplated by the 1949 Act – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 – s.2(c) – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14.
Landlord-Tenant Dispute: Meaning of the concept of a statutory tenant – Explained – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 – s.2(i).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949: s.2(c) – Landlord – Meaning of – Held: A landlord within the meaning of s.2(c) is not necessarily the owner of the property – The definition of the expression ‘landlord’ is relatable to an entitlement to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The definition of the expression ‘landlord’ is relatable to an entitlement to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land. The inclusive definition of ‘landlord’ under Section 2(c) would take in its sweep the daughter of the testator who held a life interest in the property. [Para 12][141-A-B]
KD Dewan v Harbhajan S Parihar (2002) 1 SCC 119 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 241 ; Shivdev Kaur (Dead) by LRs v RS Grewal (2013) 4 SCC 636 : [2013] 5 SCR
267 – relied on.
Ranvir Dewan v Rashmi Khanna (2018) 12 SCC 1
– referred to.
2. The provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 are available to the tenant. The tenant has a protected status. That status cannot be disrupted or brought to an end except on grounds specified in the enactment. The first respondent in whose favour the tenancy was created would be covered under the definition of the expression ‘tenant’ in Section 2(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949. The status of a statutory tenant enures as a consequence of rent control legislation. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 aims at regulating conditions of tenancy, controlling rents and preventing unreasonable eviction of tenants. For the advancement of these objects, tenants are invested with rights and landlords are subjected to obligations. The first respondent in whose favour a tenancy was created acquired a status of a statutory tenant and that status does not stand obviated by the death of testator’s daughter. The remedy available to the appellants to remove the first respondent from the property is by pursuing eviction proceedings on one or more of the grounds available in the enactment. [Para 14][145-D-F; 146-A-B]
B Bal Reddy v. Teegala Narayana Reddy (2016) 15 SCC
102 ; Nandkishor Savalaram Malu (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Hanumanmal G Biyani (Dead) through Legal Representatives (2017) 2 SCC 622 : [2016] 7 SCR 813 ; V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (1979) 4 SCC 214 : [1980] 1 SCR 334 ; Gian Devi v. Jeevan Kumar (1985) 2 SCC 683 : [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 1 – relied on.
Krishna Prosad v. Sarajubala AIR 1961 Cal 505 – approved.
3. A statutory protection granted for the benefit of the tenants under specific tenancy laws is to be viewed from a standpoint of protecting the interests of a particular class. Restrictions on recovery of possession of the premises let out to the tenants have been imposed for the benefit of the tenants as a matter of legislative policy. [Para 15][148-D] Dahya Lala v Rasul Mahomed Abdul Rahim (1963) 3 SCR 1 ; G Ponniah Thevar v Nalleyam Perumal Pillai (1977) 1 SCC 500 : [1977] 2 SCR 446 – relied on. Jagan Nath v Mittar Sain 1970 AIR (Punjab) 104 – approved.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.