Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)
B.R. Mehta vs Smt. Atma Devi & Ors on 2 September, 1987 cites

Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel & Ors on 29 August, 1975

Mr. Rohtagi drew our attention to certain observations of this Court in Gajanan Dattatraya v. Sherbanu Hosang Patel and others, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 535, where this Court held that the tenant's liability to eviction arises when the fact of unlawful subletting is proved. The fact that subsequently the other tenant had left the premises does not cure the mischief done. Mr. Rohtagi placing this decision tried to urge before us that the allotment itself of a residence or acquisition of a residence by the tenant or the wife of the tenant was sufficient to attract clause (h) of section 14(1) of the Act. The fact that subsequently the tenant had left the premises was irrelevant and did not affect the position. It.was further submitted that the tenant had acquired a premises or allotted a residence which could be considered to be so in terms of clause (h) of section 14(1) but the flat in question allotted to the wife of the tenant could not by any stretch of imagination be considered to be a matrimonial home. In England the rights of the spouses be husband or wife to the matrimonial home are now governed by the provisions of Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967. Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 22 page 650 deals with the rights of occupation in matrimonial home and paragraph 1047 deals with and provides that where one spouse is enti- tled to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of any estate or interest or contract or by virtue of any enactment giving him or her the right to remain in occupation, and the other spouse is not so entitled, then the spouse not so entitled has the certain rights (known as "rights of occupation") that is to say if in occupation, a right not to be evicted or excluded from the dwelling house or any part of it by the .other spouse except with the leave of the court given by an order if not in occupation, a right with the leave of the court so given to enter into and occupy the dwelling house. But such rights are not granted in India though it may be that with change of situation and complex problems arising it is high time to give the wife or the spouse a right of occupation in a truly matrimonial home, in case of marriage breaking up or in case of strained relationship between the husband and the wife. We, however, cannot for the purpose of this case get much assistance from the prin- ciple adumbrated in paragraph 1047 of Halsbury's Laws of England. In England cases before 1968 established that occupation of the matrimonial home by a tenant's wife after the tenant had left counts as occupation by the tenant so as to preserve the 1194 statutory tenancy for as long as the marriage itself sub- sists. In those circumstances in England the landlord could not properly be granted an order for possession against the husband unless there were available grounds for possession against both husband and wife. The tenant cannot abandon his rights while his wife remains; nor can the landlord evict the wife even if the tenant consents or purports to surren- der his statutory tenancy. This is the result of the case law in England and much social awareness and the case laws have been given statutory expression in the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967. We have no such law. The premises in ques- tion which the wife occupied was indisputably not the matri- monial home. It is nobody's case. The husband would not, therefore, have any statutory or legal right against the Government to use and enjoy the allotted premises to the wife of the tenant because of her job. Looked at from any point of view, the tenant cannot be made to lose his tenancy because of wife acquiring possession of a flat or allotment of a flat because of her official duties over which the husband has no right or domain or occupation. In the premises we are unable to sustain the judgment under appeal. To complete the story the wife of the tenant has resigned and has joined the husband at 2/14, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. We hope there will be no more strained relationship in the family. Hereafter they will live happily provided the landlord permits so. We shall try to ensure that they so permit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 50 - A N Ray - Full Document

Prem Chand And Anr. vs Sher Singh Gupta on 30 October, 1984

The short question is whether under clause (h) of Sec- tion 14(1) of the Act allotment of a house to a wife who is a Government employee in all circumstances disentitled the tenant to retain the tenanted premises. We are unable to accept the view of the Delhi High Court. We have noted the provisions. The purpose of the Act is to control rents and eviction, in other words, to control unreasonable evictions and to ensure that in an atmosphere of acute shortage of accommodation, there is proper enjoyment of available spaces by those who want and deserve. In other words, to ensure that there is no unreasonable and unnecessary spaces in the hands of one tenant and 1190 other tenants and landlords' need of occupation of spaces remains unsatisfied; clause (h) of Section 14(1) is an attempt in a way to ration out accommodation between tenants and landlords. Looked at from that point of view unless acquisition of a premises or a flat or allotment of a prem- ises or part of a premises by the tenant in which he has domain which he can reasonably and alternatively use as a substitute for the place he is using in the tenancy it cannot lead to a forfeiture of his right to occupy his tenanted premises. The case would be otherwise, however, if a tenant comes into possession of a premises or is allotted a piece of residence or acquires vacant possession of the premises then such a tenant cannot prevent, if other condi- tions are fulfilled under section 14(1)(h) of the Act being liable to forfeiture of his tenancy. But counsel for the respondent heavily relied on a decision of this Court in Prem Chand and another v. Sher Singh, [1981] Delhi Rent Judgment 287. That was a case under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and section 14(1)(h) of the Act came up for con- sideration. The respondent-tenant was out of possession since October 9. 1976. He was dispossessed during the pend- ency of the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The respondent's son was a business executive, who was, at one time, allotted a flat by his employers. On December 12, 1980, the respondent's wife purchased a flat at Saket from the Delhi Development Authority, at a cost of about Rs. 1,20,000. The flat was available to the respondent though his explanation is that it had been let out by his wife to their son. The respondent thereafter has now no case to be put back in possession of the flat in dispute. Chandrachud, C.J. delivering the judgment of the Court observed that the Court had allowed the appellants to amend their applications for possession by pleading that the respondent had acquired possesion of a vacant residence within the meaning of sec- tion 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Having considered the averments of the parties on the point at issue it was held in that case that the respondent had through his wife acquired vacant possession of a residence in Delhi and in that view of the matter was held not enti- tled to retain old tenanted premises. Mr. Avadh Bihari Rohtagi, learned counsel strenuously contended before us that this proposition that acquisition of a flat by the wife was acquisition by the tenant and such acquisition in all circumstances would be within the mischief of section 14(1)(h) of the Act and would disentitle the tenant to retain his flat in question. We are unable to accept this reading of the said Act. The said decision rested on the facts of that case. There in that case, this Court found that the respondent's wife had purchased a flat in Saket and further found that the flat was available to the respondent. In those circumstances it was held that there was acquisi- tion of vacant possession of a residence and as such section 14(1)(h) of the Act would 1191 be attracted. It cannot however be laid down as a general proposition of law that acquisition of flat by the wife in all circumstances would amount to acquisition of fiat by the tenant.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs Chandrakant M. Patel & Ors on 4 February, 1974

Our attention was drawn to certain observations of Bhagwati, J., as the learned Chief Justice then was, in Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel and others, [1974] 3 S.C.R. 267, where dealing with certain facts wheth- er premises given on a licence could be considered in con- sidering the bona fide requirement of the landlord to the allotment or acquisition. In our opinion, this principle is wholly irrelevant for the point in controversy before this Court. We are not concerned here whether there was ground for bona fide requirement of the landlord for which a suit had been filed and which is pending 1193 appeal. This fact of acquisition or allotment of flat in the name of wife (which incidentally she has lost having given up her job) can be in certain circumstances a factor in judging the bona fide needs of the landlord; but the same indisputably cannot be any ground to evict the tenant on the ground that he has acquired vacant possession or been allot- ted residence in terms of clause (h) of section 14(1).
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 103 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1