Ravi Khandelwal vs M/s. Taluka Stores

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

11 July 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 4364 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2023] 10 S.C.R. 587 : 2023 INSC 615

Headnote

Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 – s.14(3) – Interpretation of – Held: s.14(3) is for the protection of a tenant – The objective is that from the date a tenant acquires a right, he must have a right to continue in the premises for a period of five years, subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the lease – In the present case, while the suit may have been defectively instituted within five years of the tenancy, more than 38 years have now elapsed since the suit was filed – This passage of time beyond the period of five years would wash away the initial impediment against the suit – To say that the landlord-appellant should now, once again, restart the proceedings because the initial period of five years had not elapsed, even as now 38 years have elapsed, would be a travesty of justice – It would be a mockery of justice to make the parties to go through another round in the second appeal – Furthermore, the 1950 Act itself was abrogated in the year 2001, with a new statute i.e. 2001 Act, which does not create any similar bar – Judgment of High Court set aside – Decree of eviction passed by the first appellate court, affirmed – Respondenttenant to hand over vacant and physical possession of the tenanted premises – Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Tenancy.

B. Banerjee v. Smt. Anita Pan (1975) 1 SCC 166 : [1975] 2 SCR 774 – relied on.

Gyan Chand v. Kunjbeharilal & Ors. (1977) 3 SCC

317 : [1977] 2 SCR 324; Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional Distt. Judge and Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 732 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 380; Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India (2005) 4 SCC 315 : [2005] 2 SCR 680; R. Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (Dead) by LRs (1995) 2 SCC 630 : [1995] 1 SCR 715 – referred to.

Ashok Kumar v. Suresh Chand & Ors. RLW 1996 (1) Raj. 380; Kahtoon Begum (deceased) through LRs v. Bhagwan Das & Ors. RLW 2004 (1) Raj. 502; Late Mahadev & Ors. v. Babu Lal & Ors. (2006) 4 RDD 1868; Raj.; M/s. Vadhumal Kanhaiyalal & Ors. v. Hemchand & Ors. WLC (Raj.) UC 2007 (270) –

referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. Leave granted. Procedural History: 2. The respondent is the tenant of a shop situated at Plot E-2, Kamani Mansion, Paanch Batti, MI Road, Jaipur, with the appellant as the landlord. The appellant purchased the property from its erstwhile owner, M/s Jaipur Metal Electric Co., on 30.01.1985. At the time, the tenanted premises were already under the tenancy of the respondent. 3. The appellant filed a suit for eviction on grounds of bona fide necessity before the Additional Civil Judge-I, Jaipur, on 21.05.1985. The suit was

View Subscription Plans →