http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SMT. VIDHYA DHARI BHAGAT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ALLAHABAD LAW JOURNAL CO. LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/02/1990

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1015            1990 SCR  (1) 315  1990 SCC  (2)  58        JT 1990 (1)   276  1990 SCALE  (1)245

ACT: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14, 19 and  21--Rein- duction of tenant--When permissible.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellant filed two eviction petitions against  the respondent. The first of these was under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground of  personal bona fide requirement. The same was decreed in favour of the appellant, and the respondent was granted six months time to vacate  the  premises. This was in accordance  with  section 14(7)  of  the Act prohibiting the landlord  from  obtaining possession before the expiry of six months from the eviction order.     The   second  eviction  petition  filed  under   Section 14(1)(a) of the Act for non-payment of rent, was compromised between  the parties, and the respondent agreed to put  back the appellant in possession of the said premises. The tenant delivered  possession of the premises. When  the  possession was  delivered, six months period stipulated  under  Section 14(7)  did  not expire, for executing  the  eviction  decree obtained in the first suit.     Owing to some reasons, the appellant could not  continue in  the  premises and wanted to let out the  premises  to  a third  party.  At that point of time, the  erstwhile  tenant filed an application under Section 19(2) of the Act claiming re-entry into the premises. The Rent Controller rejected the application.  On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal  directed the  appellant to put back the tenant in possession  of  the premises.  A  revision petition was filed by  the  appellant before the High Court. It was dismissed in limine. Appellant has  preferred  this appeal against the order  of  the  High Court. Allowing the appeal, this Court,     HELD: 1. Sub-Section (2) of s. 19 operates in favour  of the  tenant  who  has suffered an order  of  eviction  under section 14(1)(e) or under Sections 14-A to 14-D and 21.  The tenant may move the Rent Controller for a direction  against the landlord to put him in possession of the 316 premises  or to pay him such compensation as the  Controller

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

thinks fit, if the premises is not occupied by the  landlord after  recovering  possession, or not  occupied  within  two months  by  the person for whose benefit  the  premises  are held. The tenant has a further right to move the  Controller for  such  reliefs if the landlord has at  any  time  within three  years from the date of obtaining  possession,  re-let the premises to third party without obtaining permission  of the  Controller under sub-section (1) of Section 19, or  the possession of such premises is transferred to another person not  bona  fide. If the possession is  recovered  under  any order  other than those referred to in sub-section  (1)  the tenant has no right to invoke the provisions of  sub-section (2) of section 19. [318F-H; 319A-B]     2.  In  the instant case, the  possession  was  actually delivered to the appellant by the tenant as per the  compro- mise  recorded  in the suit based on arrears of  rent  under section  14(1)(a)  and delivery of  such  possession  cannot therefore,  be  referable to the decree for  eviction  under section 14(1)(e). In fact, that decree for eviction in  Suit No.  288/77  was not put into execution and it  was  perhaps found  unnecessary to execute that decree since  the  tenant has  surrendered possession of the premises as per the  com- promise  in  Suit No. 330/77 based on arrears of  rent.  The application  filed  by the tenant under sub-section  (2)  of section 19 of the Act was, therefore, clearly not  maintain- able. [319E-F]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3804  of 1989.     From  the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.89 of the  Delhi High Court in SAO No. 84 of 1989.     Dr.  Y.S. Chitale, Mrs. and Mr. Rajan Karanjawala,  Atul Chitale and H.S. Anand for the Appellant.     K.K Jain, J.P. Gupta, Mrs. Darshan Gupta and P.D. Sharma for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     K.  JAGANNATHA  SHETTY, J. This appeal  is  against  the order for reinduction of the tenant into the premises  under section  19(2)  of the Delhi Rent Control  Act,  1958  (’The Act’). The facts are these: The appellant filed two eviction  peti- tions 317 against  the respondents; one was under section 14(1)(e)  on the ground of personal bona fide requirement for  occupation and the other was under section 14(1)(e) for non-payment  of rent. The former suit was registered as Suit No. 288/77  and the later as Suit No. 330/77. On December 24, 1977 Suit  No. 288/77 was decreed in favour of the appellant. The  respond- ent  was granted six months time to evict the  premises.  In fact  the landlord has no right to evict the tenant for  six months when the eviction order is made on the ground  speci- fied  under  section 14(1)(e). Section 14(7)  prohibits  the landlord  from obtaining possession of the  premises  before the  expiration of a period of six months from the  date  of the eviction order.     On April 17, 1978 the Suit No. 330/77 was compromised as between  the  parties. Under the  compromise  the  appellant accepted Rs.6,000 as arrears of rent as against the claim of Rs. 29,000 in the suit. The respondent-tenant in turn agreed to put the appellant in possession of the premises.  Accord- ingly,   the   tenant  delivered  the  possession   of   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

premises,--a fact which is not in dispute.     It  may  be  significant to note that  when  the  tenant delivered  possession  of the premises,  six  months  period provided  under section 14(7) did not expire  for  executing the eviction decree obtained in Suit No. 288/77.     For  some  reason or the other the appellant  could  not continue  in the premises. She has to let out the same to  a third  party.  There then the tenant  filed  an  application under  sub-section (2) of Section 19 claiming re-entry  into the premises. The Rent Controller rejected that application, but  upon appeal the Rent Control Tribunal has given  relief to the tenant directing the appellant to put back the tenant in possession of the premises. The High Court has  dismissed the Revision Petition in limine.     It  will  be convenient if at this stage, we  read  sub- section (1) of Section 19 of the Act: "19(1)   Recovery   of   possession   for   occupation   and reentry--Where  a landlord recovers possession of any  prem- ises  from  the tenant in pursuance of an order  made  under clause  (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section  14 (or  under  Sections  14-A, 14-B, 14-C, 14-D  and  21),  the landlord  shall not, except with the permission of the  Con- troller obtained in the prescribed manner, re-let the  whole or any 318 part  of  the premises within three years from the  date  of obtaining such possession, and in granting such  permission, the  Controller may direct the landlord to put such  evicted tenant in possession of the premises."     Sub-section (1) refers to recovery of possession of  any premises from the tenant in pursuance of an order made under Section 14(1)(e) or under sub-section 14-A, 14-B, 14-C, 14-D and  21. The landlord shall not re-let such premises  within three  years from the date of obtaining possession from  the tenant without the permission of the Controller.     Sub-section (2) of Section 19 is more important and must be set out in full: "19(2) Where a landlord recovers possession of any  premises as aforesaid and the premises are not occupied by the  land- lord  or  by the person for whose benefit the  premises  are held, within two months of obtaining such possession or  the premises  having  been so occupied are, at any  time  within three years from the date of obtaining possession, re-let to any  person other than the evicted tenant without  obtaining the permission of the Controller under subsection (1) or the possession of such premises is transferred to another person for reasons which do not appear to the Controller to be bona fide,  the Controller may, on an application made to him  in this  behalf by such evicted tenant within such time as  may be  prescribed,  direct the landlord to put  the  tenant  in possession  of the premises or to pay him such  compensation as the Controller thinks fit."     This sub-section again operates in favour of the  tenant who has suffered an order of eviction under section 14(1)(e) or  under  Section 14-A to 14-D and 21. The  landlord  after recovering  possession of the premises does not  occupy  the same  or it is not occupied by the person for whose  benefit the  premises  are held, within 2 months of  obtaining  such possession, the tenant may move the Controller for a  direc- tion  against the landlord to put him in possession  of  the premises  or to pay him such compensation as the  Controller thinks fit. Not merely that, the tenant has a further  right to move the Controller for such reliefs if the landlord  has at  any time within three years from the date  of  obtaining possession,  re-let  the  premises to  third  party  without

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

obtaining permission of the Controller under sub-section (1) of section 19, or the 319 possession of such premises is transferred to another person not  bona  fide. This right of the tenant  to  re-enter  the premises  is,  however, restricted only in cases  where  the tenant  is  ordered  to  be  evicted  either  under  section 14(1)(e)  or  under  sections 14-A to 14-D and  21.  If  the possession  is  recovered under any order other  than  those referred  to in sub-section (1) the tenant has no  right  to invoke the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 19.     With  these requirements of the statute, it may  now  be examined whether the tenant has a right to seek re-induction into the premises under sub-section (2) of section 19.     From  the  narration of facts it will be seen  that  the parties  entered  into a compromise in Suit  No.  330/77  by which  the tenant has willingly surrendered possession  with payment of Rs.6,000 to the appellant as arrears of rent.  On that  day there was no execution of the decree for  eviction obtained in Suit No. 288/77. It was, however, contended that the tenant willingly surrendered possession of the  premises without waiting for the execution of the eviction decree  in Suit No. 288/77 and there is no such bar for surrendering of possession  under  section 14(7) of the Act. We  could  have accepted  this  submission if there was only  a  decree  for possession  in  Suit No. 228/77, but that is not so  in  the instant  case. The possession was actually delivered to  the appellant  by the tenant as per the compromise  recorded  in the suit based on arrears of rent under section 14(1)(a) and delivery  of such possession cannot therefore, be  referable to the decree for eviction under section 14(1)(e). In  fact, that decree for eviction in Suit No. 288/77 was not put into execution  and it was perhaps found unnecessary  to  execute that  decree since the tenant has surrendered possession  of the premises as per the compromise in Suit No. 330/77  based on  arrears  of rent. The application filed  by  the  tenant under  sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Act was,  there- fore, clearly not maintainable.     In the result the appeal is allowed, and in reversal  of the  order of the Rent Control Tribunal as affirmed  by  the High Court, we restore the order of the Rent Controller. In  the  circumstances of the case, we make no order  as  to costs. G.N.                                        Appeal allowed. 320