NDLI: Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Delhi Rent Control Act 1908-S. 115 Code of Civil Procedure 1958: Section 14(1)(e) and 25(B)(8) proviso
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Rent Control and Eviction :Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 :Section 14(1)(e)-Bona fide requirement of landlord-Landlord did not disclose in the petition about his having another accommodation-Reasonably suitable residential accommodation-Availability of-Held, Question intermixed with the question regarding bona fide requirement-That the landlord has another reasonably suitable residential accommodation is a good defence for the tenant-But whether that accommodation is more suitable than the suit premises--Such a question would not necessarily depend upon the pleading-Hence, non-disclosure by landlord regarding availability of another accommodation is not fatal to the eviction proceedings if both parties understood the case and placed materials before the court, and neither party is prejudiced.Section 25(B)(8) proviso-Revision-Scope-Pure findings of fact-interference with-In revision-By High Court-Rent Controller took the view that non-disclosure information was fatal lo the eviction proceedings-Held, Findings of fact given on a wrong premise of law can be interfered with-In the circumstances of the case, High Court lightly re-examined the matter and took a different view--Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-S. 115.Practice and Procedure.Pleadings-Vague pleadings-Effect of-Held: Not fatal to the eviction proceedings if both parties understood the case and placed materials before the court and neither party is prejudiced. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground of respondent's bona fide requirement of the house. The appellant filed his written statement contending that the landlord had alternate accommodation at Subzi Mandi and he had deliberately shifted to the disputed premises with an ulterior motive to make out a case for the eviction of the appellant and this fact of availability of the said premises in Subzi Mandi had not been disclosed in the petition. In the course of the proceedings, the Rent Controller recorded a finding that the accommodation in occupation of the landlord was too short and if he did not have any other suitable residential accommodation he was entitled to an eviction order. On the question whether the respondent had disclosed the full facts necessary for the disposal of the petition filed by him, the Rent Controller noticed that from the evidence recorded, the allegation of the appellant in the written statement in respect of the accommodation in possession and available to the respondent in Subzi Mandi stood proved. And, therefore, the respondent had not come to Court ith clean hands and so with mala fide intention to evict the appellant. The matter was carried to the High Court in Revision. The High Court agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller as regards bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord. On the controversy of the nondisclosure of the availability of accommodation at Subzi Mandi and that there was no true disclosure of the facts, the High Court examined the matter in detail. The High Court noticed that the father of the respondent D, had rented the premises at Subzi Mandi from a Trust in the year 1944 and thereafter he was residing in the said premises with his family, D died in 1980. After his death, R, the original petitioner in the eviction petition continued to reside in that accommodation at Subzi Mandi where his father was a tenant. R shifted from the said accommodation when the same became available to him sometime in 1982. The landlord of Subzi Mandi property had served a notice upon the respondent to vacate the premises in the year 1981. The actual possession of the Subzi Mandi house was handed over to the landlord in March 1984 as per receipt. The said receipt disclosed the name of D though he bad demised long back and thus the landlord did not accept or recognize the respondent R as a tenant. For about two years prior to the actual handing over of the possession of the premises, the same remained locked and in possession of the respondent, since R had shifted to the suit property along with his family in the year - 1982. The High Court felt that in the peculiar facts of this case it was necessary to examine whether the said accommodation could be said to be "other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available to the respondent" and held firstly that the respondent had shifted to the ground floor in the suit premises long before filing of the present eviction petition and the Subzi Mandi accommodation was not a reasonably suitable residential accommodation available for him and his family; secondly in view of the notice of eviction served on the respondent by the landlord of the Subzi Mandi property, he was under pressure of being evicted from the said premises. The High Court was of the view that the respondent could not be said to have other reasonable suitable accommodation and, therefore, non-disclosure thereof could not be fatal to the petition and on that basis allowed the petition. Hence this appeal.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu
Neutral Citation	1998 INSC 328
Petitioner	Ram Narain Arora
Respondent	Asha Rani And Ors.
SCR	[1998] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 188
Judgement Date	1998-08-31
Case Number	8494

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

N.c. Daga Vs. Inder Mohan Singh Rana

Vaishakhi Ram and Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani

South Asia Industries Private. Ltd. Vs. S. Sarup Singh and Others

Jagan Nath Vs. Ram Kishan Dass and Anr.

Sunder Dass Vs. Ram Prakash

Jai Narain Vs. Kishen Chand

Chandmal Vs. Firm Ram Chandra and Vishwanath

M/s Cox and Kings Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Smt. Chander Malhotra

Kusum Lata Sharma Vs. Arvind Singh

Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and Ors.

Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

N.c. Daga Vs. Inder Mohan Singh Rana

Vaishakhi Ram and Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani

South Asia Industries Private. Ltd. Vs. S. Sarup Singh and Others

Jagan Nath Vs. Ram Kishan Dass and Anr.

Sunder Dass Vs. Ram Prakash

Jai Narain Vs. Kishen Chand

Chandmal Vs. Firm Ram Chandra and Vishwanath

M/s Cox and Kings Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Smt. Chander Malhotra

Kusum Lata Sharma Vs. Arvind Singh

Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and Ors.