Skip to content


R.M.L. Bhatnagar Vs. Inder Parkash Etc. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 52 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1974RLR409
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 21
AppellantR.M.L. Bhatnagar
Respondentinder Parkash Etc.
Advocates: D.R. Malhotra,; Ved Vyas and; J. Kholi, Advs
Excerpt:
- .....of the act, respondent no. 2, the vendee, made an application before the controller for obtaining vacant possession of the premises by evicting the appellant. the latter objected to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the permission obtained by shri inder parkash, respondent no. 1. could not be availed of by the vendee, respondent no. 2. the controller dismissed the tenant's objection and ordered the issuance of warrants of possession. tenant's appeal was dismissed, likewise, by the rent control tribunal. the tenant then field the present second appeal. (4) the only question which arises in this appeal is; whether the vendee can take advantage of the provision of section 21 of the act. and apply for vacant possession of the premises, which were let out for a.....
Judgment:

P.N. Khanna, J.

(1) Shri Inder Parkash, respondent No. 1, was the owner of property No. A-14, Green Park, New Delhi. He applied to the Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1955, herein called 'the Act' for obtaining permission to let out the entire ground floor of the said house for a limited period of 11 months. On permission being granted on, June 4, 1970, the ground floor was let out to Lt.Col R.M.L. Bhatnagar, the appellant, as a residence for the period expiring, on May 3 1971. Before the said period expired Shri Inder Parkash entered into an agreement dated April 15, 1971 for the sale of the said property, with Bengal Suppliers and Health Builders Private Limited, respondent No. 2. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the directors of respondent No. 2.

(2) While there were still some days for the limited period to expire, a second application under section 21 of the Act was filed by Shri Inder Parkash, jointly with the appellant tenant for permission to let out the aforesaid premises for a further period of 11 months. The Controller, however, dismissed the said application. On appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal, the required permission under section 21 was granted on May 25, 1971 to create a tenancy in favor of the appellant for a limited period of 11 months from the date of the said order. On September 2, 1971, Shri Inder Parkash executed a registered sale deed in respect of the said property in favor of respondent No. 2, the vendee, who, thus, became the landlord.

(3) As the appellant tenant did not vacate the premises on the expiry of the limited period for which the premises had been let out to him under a written agreement after obtaining the said permission under section 21 of the Act, respondent No. 2, the vendee, made an application before the Controller for obtaining vacant possession of the premises by evicting the appellant. The latter objected to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the permission obtained by Shri Inder Parkash, respondent No. 1. could not be availed of by the vendee, respondent No. 2. The Controller dismissed the tenant's objection and ordered the issuance of warrants of possession. Tenant's appeal was dismissed, likewise, by the Rent Control Tribunal. The tenant then field the present second appeal.

(4) The only question which arises in this appeal is; whether the vendee can take advantage of the provision of section 21 of the Act. and apply for vacant possession of the premises, which were let out for a limited period to the tenant by' the vendor after obtaining the necessary permission under that section. According to Mr. D. R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the tenant appellant, the right of the landlord under section 21 to ask for vacant possession of the premises on the expiry of the limited period for which the premises were let with the Controller's permission, is a 'personal right and is neither transferable nor heritable. He contended that the provision of section 21 are analogous to the provisions of the proviso (e) to section 14 (1) of the Act, and that just as a transferee of the premises cannot ask for the eviction of a tenant in pursuance of an order of eviction passed on the ground referred to in the proviso (e) to section 14 (1) of the Act, in favor of the transferor landlord, the transferee likewise, cannot take advantage of an order under section 21, which may have been passed in favor of the transferor landlord. This contention, however, is devoid of force. There is no similarity between proviso (e) to section 14 (1) and section 21 of the Act.

(5) It is obvious that proviso (e) to section 14 (1) refers to the nature of the landlord's requirement for the premises. The premises should be required bona fide by him for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, etc. Emphasis has been laid on the personal nature of his requirements. Section 21, on the other .hand, is not concerned with the nature of the landlord's requirement. The requirement of the landlord referred to in section 21 may be for his own personal residence or for any other purpose. It may even be for sale of the premises to some one else or for letting it out to any particular individual after the lapse of some specified time. No qualifications are prescribed to limit or define the nature of the landlord's requirements. The section comes into play whatever may be the nature of the landlord's requirement. The right given to the landlord to get vacant possession under this section after the expiry of the limited period, during which the premises, instead of being kept vacant, have been allowed to be used by a tenant thereforee, cannot be said to be a personal right incapable of transfer. Further, proviso (e) to section 14 (1) uses positive language and is applicable when the landlord requires the premises for the specified purpose. Section 21, on the other hand, -is in negative terms and comes in to play when the landlord does not require the premises. The authorities cited by Mr. D.R. Malhotra holding the right of the landlord to ask for eviction of the tenant under proviso (e) to section 14 (1) as a personal right incapable of being transferred are, thereforee, of no relevance in this case. .

(6) Section 21 is designed to meet the problem of shortage of housing accommodation in Delhi. The landlord may not need the premises for a limited period. Section 21 permits him to lease it out during that period for being used by a tenant, who may need it for that period. Without this section, the landlord may prefer to keep the premises vacant and not let it out for if he lets it out, he may be prevented by the provisions of section 14 of the Act, from getting back vacant possession from the tenant, when he may need it. Even if the landlord needs the premises for handing over its possession to a vendee, to whom he may agree to sell, but after some time, he will be obliged to keep it vacant, during that time, in order to be able to hand over vacant possession on the completion of the sale. Section 21 enables such a vendor landlord to let out the accommodation to a tenant who may need the premises for that limited period only, by giving a right to the vendor or to a transferee from him, whosoever may be the landlord at the relevant time, of getting vacant possession of the premises, after the expiry of the said limited period. The right to get vacant possession under section 21 is, thus not a personal right, which is not transferable.

(7) Under section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, property of any kind can be transferred except as otherwise provided by the said Act or by any other Act for the time being in force. An interest in property restricted in its enjoyment to the owner personally, however, cannot be transferred. The right of the landlord under section 21 of the Act not being a right restricted in its enjoyments to the owner personally, thereforee, is transferable, according to section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. Under section 109 of the Transfer of property Act, if the Lesser transfers the property leased, the transferee in the absence of a contract to the country acquires all the rights and if the lessee (sic) all the liabilities of the Lesser as to the property transferred. There is, thereforee, nothing to prevent or restrict the transfer-of the rights of the Lesser landlord under section 21 of the Act in favor of the vendee. Under section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where any proceedings may be taken or, application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may be taken or, the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him, Respondent No. 2 claims the right given by section 21, under Shri Inder Parkash, respondent No. 1. He, thereforee, can take proceedings and make an application under section 21 for the eviction of the appellant tenant. The appellant, thereforee, having obtained possession of the premises as a tenant for a limited period with the permission of the Controller under section 21, has to vacate the said premises on the expiry of the said period notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 is thereforee, entitled to file his application for the appellant's eviction under section 21 of the Act and the Controller was right in issuing warrants of possession of the premises. I, thereforee, find that the Tribunal's order dismissing the appellant's first appeal is correct.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //