Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Damyanti Verma(D) Tr.Lrs. vs L.I.C.Of India . on 19 February, 2014
rJ
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).18415-18419/2012
(From the judgement and order dated 23/03/2012 in LPA No.977/2011,LPA
No.978/2011,LPA No.979/2011,LPA No.980/2011 dated 11/05/2012 in LPA
No.977/2011 in RP No.234/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)
DAMYANTI VERMA(D) TR.LRS.& ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
L.I.C.OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report )
WITH
SLP(C) NO. 18575 of 2012
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
(For final disposal)
SLP(C) NO. 21436 of 2012
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
(For final disposal)
Date: 19/02/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bahar U. Barqi, Adv.
Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.
Mr. H.P. Rawal, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Goel, Adv.
Mr.Naveen Geol, Adv.
Mr. Marsook Bafaki, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr.Adv.
Mr. C. Paramsivam, Adv.
Mr. P. Ramesh, Adv.
Mr. M.P. Parthiban, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma,Adv.
Ms. Niranjana Singh, Adv.
Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal
Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr.Adv.
Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv.
Mr. Umrao Singh Rawat, Adv.
...2/-
:2:
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(C) Nos.18415-18519/12 & SLP(C) No.18575/12:
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
SLP(C) No.21436/2012:
Heard Mr. H.P. Rawal learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Niranjana Singh learned counsel appearing for Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal advocate on record.
(2) This matter was adjourned on 11th February, 2014 on the request of learned counsel for the respondents since they wanted time to be ready with the matter. Today also a request is made by Ms. Niranjana Singh appearing on behalf of Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal advocate-on-record for the respondents. The matter is adjourned since the advocate-on-record is reported to be not well.
Mr. Rawal points out that the matter is fully covered under the judgment rendered by this Court in Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Its Estate Officer reported in 2014 (2) SCALE 223. Even so, in view of the request by the learned counsel appearing for advocate-on-record for respondent on health ground, let the matter be listed on 25th February, 2014 To be listed high up on the board.
[Usha Bhardwaj] [Sneh Lata Sharma] A.R-cum-P.S. Court Master Signed orders are placed on the file.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2720-2724 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.18415-18419/2012) Damyanti Verma (D) Tr. Lrs. & Anr. .......Appellants VERSUS L.I.C. of India & Ors. .....Respondents O R D E R (1) Leave granted.
(2) Heard Mr. Bahar U. Barqi learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Kailash Vasdev learned senior counsel for the respondents.
(3) The appellant’s husband Mr. P.L. Verma was the tenant of residential premises in dispute since 1946. It is with respect to those premises that the proceedings for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated by the respondents and eviction order came to be passed. This was challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court who accepted the submissions of the appellants, but the judgment of the learned Single Judge was reversed by the Division Bench. The order passed in L.P.A.Nos.977/2011, 978/2011, 979/2011 and 980/2011 are therefore challenged in the present appeals.
(4) The learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and its Estate Officer reported in 2014 ...2/-
:2:(2) SCALE 223 wherein this Court has held that the Public Premises Act (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), 1971 will not apply prior to the date on which it came into force i.e. on 16.09.1958. Inasmuch as the appellants are occupying the premises continuously since prior to 16.9.1958 i.e. the date on which the Act came into force, the Act will not apply in their case also and the proceedings will have to be held as null and void. This plea was specifically raised by the appellants in the proceedings earlier, and since that plea has been accepted in the aforesaid judgment, in our view, the case of the appellants is squarely covered under the judgment rendered in Dr. Suhas H. Pophale’s case.
(5) These appeals are therefore allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 23.3.2012 in LPA.Nos. 977, 978, 979 & 980 of 2011 and the order dated 11.5.20123 in Review Petition Nos.234/2012 in L.P.A. No.977/2011 are set aside. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is restored. We, however, make it clear that in the event the respondents intend to take any steps for the purpose of eviction, it will be open to them to resort to the remedy available under the Delhi Rent Control Act provided they make out a case therefor.
...........................J. ( H.L. GOKHALE ) ............................J. NEW DELHI;
(KURIAN JOSEPH ) FEBRUARY 19, 2014.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2719 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.18575 of 2012) P.P. Chaudhary .......Appellant VERSUS L.I.C. of India ......Respondent O R D E R (1) Leave granted.
(2) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kailash Vasdev learned senior counsel for the respondent. (3) The father of the appellant was running a shop selling books in Daryaganj in Delhi from 1954. He has been paying rent and running the business thereafter continuously. His case is is that he cannot be evicted by relying upon the provisions of Public Premises Act, 1971. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and its Estate Officer reported 2014 (23) SCALE 223 wherein this Court has taken the view that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 cannot be applied prior to 16.9.1958 when the Act came into force.
(4) Mr. Vasdev learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the appellant has entered into another lease agreement and on that basis the impugned action is taken. In our view, that agreement will have to be construed in continuation of the earlier landlord-tenant relationship. That being so, the eviction proceedings have to be held as bad in law.
...2/-
‘:2:
(5) The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order impugned herein dated 11.5.2012 in LPA No.43/2012 and the eviction order are therefore, quashed and set aside. However, we make it clear that in case the respondent intends to take any steps for eviction, it will be open to it to resort to the remedy available under the Delhi Rent Control Act provided the respondent makes out a case therefor.
...........................J. ( H.L. GOKHALE ) ...........................J. NEW DELHI;
(KURIAN JOSEPH ) FEBRUARY 19, 2014.