VIDYAWATI Vs. TAKAN DASS AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since we are concerned primarily with the construction of section 25 and secondly with that of sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 50 of the Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) it would be best to begin by reading by these provisions which are as follows :

(2.) One Pishori Lal was the tenant of the landlord Takan Dass in respect S. Pishori Lal died in 1957. His heirs under the Hindu of these premise Law are the widow Vidyawanti (appellant herein), three sons of which the eldest was Tarlochan Lal and three daughters, The landlord filed a petition for eviction in 1964 against Tarlochan Lal alone alleging that he alone was the tenant. In the eviction petition, no reference was made to the fact that the original tenant was Pishori Lal. Nor was any reference made to the fact that Pishori Lal had left heirs other than Tarlochan Lal. On April 12, 1967, the landlord, obtained an order for eviction against Tarlochan Lal. The first and second appeals filed by Tarlochan Lal against the order for eviction were dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court. Time to vacate the premises had been given to. Tarlochan Lal till June 12, 1970. On May 7, 1970 another son of Pishori Lal filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against the landlord but the suit was dismissed and the appeal and the revision against the dismissal also failed. The widow Vidyawanti then filed a civil suit against the landlord for injunction. It was averred that after the death of Pishori Lal, the tenancy was inherited by all his heirs including the widow Vidyawanti. As Tarlochan Lal did not pull on well with the other heirs, a partition took place by virtue of which Tarlochan Lal was allotted soma other premises while the present premises fall to the share of, the other heirs of Pishori Lal on September 9, 1959, The landlord was thus not justified in filing an application for eviction against Tarlochan Lal alone in 1964 as at that time Tarlochan Lal had the interest in the premises at all, Order for eviction obtained by the landlord against Tarlochan Lal was not, therefore, binding on the other heirs of Pishori Lal who were the real tenants of the premises. During the pendency of the suit, an application for temporary injunction restraining the landlord from taking possession was made by the plaintiff Vidyawanti. That application was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal against the said dismissal was also rejected by the first appellate Court. Vidyawanti then filed a revision under section 115 Civil procedure Code in the High Court. The said revision came up for hearing before one of us (Deshpande, J.) and was dismissed with the following observation :

(3.) The scheme of the Act makes it clear that it deals with a pre-existing relationship of landlord and tenant. The relationship is not created by or under the Act. It is created under the Transfer of Property Act or under an agreement or any other relevant law under which an interest in the premises belonging to the landlord is created in favour of a tenant and such an interest amounts to a lease. The Act presupposes the existence of the relationship. This is why the contractual relationship of landlord and tenant has to be first terminated by the landlord by a notice to quit under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before a petition for eviction under the Act can be filed by hit (Battoo Mal v. Rameshwar Nath, 1970 1 ILR(Del) 748) Section 14 of the Act dealing with the eviction of a tenant by the landlord presupposes that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists and then proceeds to lay down that the landlord shall not evict his tenant except on certain specified grounds.