Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. We, thus, find no inconsistency, much less any conflict in the decisions of this Court in Atma Ram Properties and Niyas Ahmed Khan. The decision in Niyas Ahmad Khan has no application to the facts of the present case and it seems to be covered by the decision of the Atma Ram Properties.

9. However, Mr. U. U. Lalit, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the decision in Atma Ram Properties would apply only to cases under the Delhi Rent Control Act and shall have no application to tenancies governed by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. Mr. Lalit submitted that the Delhi Rent Control Act defined `tenant' in a way as to exclude a person against whom a decree of eviction was passed. Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 defined tenant as:

11. Learned counsel then took us through various provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. He referred to section 5(11) defining "tenant" and emphasised that this definition did not have any exclusionary clause as in section 2(1) of the Delhi Act. Section 5(11) of the Bombay Rent Act reads as follows:

"5(11). "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for any premises and includes,-

(a) such sub-tenants and other persons as have derived title under a tenant before the 1st day of February 1973;

20. The decision then went on to examine section 2(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act that defined `tenant' and section 14 that provided for restrictions on subletting and held that those provisions supported the view taken by the Court that the statutory tenant retained as much interest in the demised premises as a contractual tenant.

21. The case of Ganpat Ladha arose under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and the premises from which the tenant was sought to be evicted was a shop let out to him for business purpose. The trial court and the appellate court decreed the suit on the findings that the tenant had failed to make payment of the arrears of rent even after a valid notice of demand was given to him by the landlord and further that he was not entitled to the protection of section 12(3)(b) of the Act. The tenant challenged the decrees passed by the courts below before the High Court in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court the tenant died and her son was impleaded in her place to pursue the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The High Court eventually allowed the writ petition on the ground that despite the default in payment of arrears of rent, the trial court could exercise its discretion in favour of the tenant and decline to pass a decree of eviction. The matter finally came to this Court in appeal preferred by landlord. A three-Judge Bench of the Court allowed the appeal inter alia holding that after the death of the original tenant her son could not claim to be a tenant within the meaning of the Act. The decision in Ganpat Ladha is based entirely on interpretation of the definition of `tenant' under the Bombay Rent Act. The Court noticed section 5(11) defining tenant and reproduced the section insofar as it was relevant to the case as follows:

"This Court has very aptly observed in Damadilal case that it cannot be assumed that with the determination of the tenancy, the estate must necessarily disappear and the statute can only preserve the status of irremovability and not the estate he has in the premises in his occupation"

In the same paragraph, the decision reproduced Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act that defined tenant both as it stood prior to and after its amendment by Act 18 of 1976 and observed as follows: