- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pushpa Rani And Others v. Bhagwanti Devi And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The litigation concerns shop No. 29/3943, Rehgarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The respondent, Bhagwanti Devi, is the admitted owner. Chaman Lal was the original tenant on a monthly rent of Rs 58.44. After Chaman Lal’s death on 11-1-1965, his elder son, Sushil Kumar, continued in occupation.
Alleging default in rent, the respondent filed Eviction Petition No. 667/1972 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“the Act”). Sushil Kumar cleared the arrears and the petition was dropped. A fresh default led to Eviction Petition No. 668/1975 under Sections 14(1)(a) & 14(2).
The widow and other heirs of Chaman Lal applied to be impleaded, contending that the tenancy had devolved upon all heirs. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed that application on 24-4-1976; the order attained finality. On 17-7-1976 the Controller passed an eviction order against Sushil Kumar alone. His appeal (R.C.A. 790/1976) was filed before the Rent Control Tribunal.
Meanwhile, the landlady initiated execution proceedings (E.P. 54/1976). The other heirs objected; the executing court upheld their objection and dismissed the execution on 21-2-1978. The respondent’s appeal (R.C.A. 399/1978) and Sushil Kumar’s appeal against the eviction order were heard together. On 23-10-1978, the Tribunal allowed the respondent’s execution appeal and dismissed Sushil Kumar’s appeal on merits.
Sushil Kumar (S.A.O. 374/1978) and the other heirs (S.A.O. 375/1978) filed second appeals before the Delhi High Court. Both were dismissed by a common judgment dated 28-11-1988. The present civil appeals arise from that dismissal; special leave was granted in SLP (C) No. 4105/1989.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the death of the original tenant, the non-residential tenancy devolved on all legal heirs or solely on Sushil Kumar as the continuing tenant.
- Whether an eviction decree passed only against Sushil Kumar is executable against the premises notwithstanding objections by the other heirs.
- Whether the conduct of the other heirs amounted to an implied surrender of whatever tenancy rights they might have inherited.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- A non-residential tenancy is heritable; upon Chaman Lal’s death, all heirs inherited the tenancy.
- An eviction decree against one heir (Sushil Kumar) cannot terminate the co-heirs’ independent tenancy rights.
- Reliance was placed on Gian Devi v. Jiwan Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 683, which recognises the heritability of commercial tenancies.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents’ legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Gian Devi v. Jiwan Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 683; 1985 Supp (1) SCR 1 | A non-residential tenancy is heritable and devolves on the heirs of the deceased tenant. | The Court held the principle correct but not inconsistent with the doctrine of implied surrender; thus it did not assist the appellants. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reviewed the concurrent factual findings of the Rent Controller, the Rent Control Tribunal, and the High Court. Those authorities had found that after Chaman Lal’s death, it was Sushil Kumar alone who remained in exclusive occupation and carried on business in the premises. From the prolonged inaction and conduct of the other heirs, the courts inferred an implied surrender of any tenancy rights originally vested in them.
While acknowledging the correctness of the heritability principle stated in Gian Devi, the Court explained that such heritability does not preclude an heir from surrendering or abandoning the tenancy. The evidence supported the inference that the other heirs had relinquished their interest, leaving Sushil Kumar as the sole tenant. Consequently, an eviction decree against him alone was sufficient and binding on the premises as a whole.
The challenge mounted in execution—asserting that the decree was ineffective against the non-impleaded heirs—was therefore untenable. Likewise, Sushil Kumar’s own appeal lacked any substantive grounds.
Holding and Implications
Appeals DISMISSED with costs.
The eviction decree against Sushil Kumar stands affirmed and is executable; the other heirs cannot resist execution. The judgment applies existing principles of implied surrender and does not lay down a new rule of law.
Order
1. Special leave in SLP (C) No. 4105 of 1989 granted. The two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 28-11-1988 of the High Court of Delhi in S.A.O Nos. 374 and 375 of 1978. The appeals before the High Court arose out of proceedings for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to shop No. 29/3943, Rehgarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
2. The eviction proceedings commenced as far back as in the year 1972. The respondent — Bhagwanti Devi is admittedly the house-owner. And a certain Chaman Lal was the original tenant on a monthly rent of Rs 58.44p According to the respondents, after the death of Chaman Lal on 11-1-1965, his elder son Sushil Kumar continued as tenant and there having been a default in payment of rents, respondents instituted Eviction Petition No. 667 of 1972 under Section 14(1)(a). It would appear that in those proceedings Sushil Kumar tendered the arrears of rent and relief against forfeiture having been granted the eviction petition came to an end.
3. Thereafter, in the year 1975 the respondents alleging a repetition of default in the payment of rents instituted a fresh Eviction Petition No. 668 of 1975 under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 14(2) of the Act.
4. In the said proceedings appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5012 of 1989, who are the widow and the other heirs of Chaman Lal sought to have themselves impleaded on the ground that after the death of Chaman Lal the tenancy respecting the premises was inherited by all the heirs of Chaman Lal and that Sushil Kumar was not the only or exclusive tenant. That application was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 24-4-1976. The order of dismissal not having been challenged in further proceedings by the heirs has assumed finality. Thereafter on 17-7-1976 the Additional Rent Controller proceeded to make an order of eviction against Sushil Kumar. Sushil Kumar preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal in R.C.A No. 790 of 1976.
5. In the meanwhile the respondents put the order of eviction dated 17-7-1976 into Execution in Ext. P. No. 54 of 1976. In those proceedings the other L.R.s of Chaman Lal whose impleadment was refused on the original side sought to raise the same objection that the order of eviction made against Sushil Kumar alone was not binding on the other heirs of Chaman Lal. The executing court by its order dated 21-2-1978, upheld those objections and dismissed the execution application. Aggrieved by that order, respondents preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal in R.C.A No. 399 of 1978. As the earlier appeal R.C.A No. 790 of 1976 of Sushil Kumar against the order of eviction was also then pending, the Rent Control Tribunal, heard and disposed of the appeals by two separate orders both dated 23-10-1978. The appeal of the respondents — arising out of Execution Petition No. 54 of 1976 was allowed and that of Sushil Kumar preferred against the order of eviction was dismissed.
6. Against these two orders of the Tribunal both Sushil Kumar and the other heirs brought up two second appeals before the High Court, the former in S.A.O No. 374 of 1978 and the latter in S.A.O No. 375 of 1978. These two appeals were dismissed by the High Court by its common judgment dated 28-11-1988. The present appeals before us emanate from the dismissal of these appeals by the High Court.
7. We have heard Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri R.K Kaura, learned counsel for the respondents.
8. The contention strenuously urged by Shri Aruneshwar Gupta in support of these appeals is that it is a settled law that even a non-residential tenancy is heritable, that the heirs of a deceased tenant inherit the tenancy and that the decree against Sushil Kumar alone was insufficient to denude the rights of the appellants who are the other heirs.
9. On a consideration of the evidence, the High Court concurring with the findings of fact on the point recorded by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal, held that after the death of Chaman Lal it was Sushil Kumar alone who continued in occupation of, and was carrying on the business in, the premises and that in the circumstances of the case the other heirs must be held to have surrendered their rights to tenancy. This implied surrender was inferred from the evidence as to the conduct of the other heirs. The principle in Gian Devi case (1985) 2 SCC 683, 1985 Supp (1) SCR 1 as to the heritability of a non-residential tenancy relied upon by Shri Gupta does not detract from, and is not inconsistent with, the principle of implied surrender. The finding on implied surrender, in our opinion, is supported by the evidence on record. Both the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court, in our opinion, were right in not countenancing the claim of the heirs which incidentally came through the challenge on the executing side. So far as the appeal of Sushil Kumar is concerned, there is hardly anything that can be said in support of it.
10. We, accordingly, find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed with costs.
Alert