RFA(OS)/81/2011 of RAJENDRA SINGH Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA

Digitally Signed By:AMULYACertify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ludament reserved on : 23''^ November. 2011ludament delivered on : 12'^^ December. 2011

RFA(OS) 81/2011

RAJENDRASINGHThrough:

...Appellant

Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate

versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA...RespondentThrough:Mr.PrashantMishra, Advocate forMr.S.N.Relan,Advocate

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOGHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG.I.

For orders, see RFA(OS) 79/2011.

(S^.GARG)JUDGE

—TT"Q((PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)JUDGE

Decennber 12, 2011tr

*m THE HIGH COURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

ludament reserved on : 23'"' November,2011ludament delivered on : 12^'' December.2011

RFA(OS) 79/2011

VIRENDERSINGHThrough:

...AppellantMr.Ajay Verma, Advocate

versus

STATE BANK OF INDIAThrough:

...Respondent

Mr.PrashantMishra, Advocate forMr.S.N.Relan,Advocate

RFA(OS) 80/2011

BHUPENDERSINGHThrough:

...Appellant

Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate

versus

STATE BANK OF INDIAThrough:

...RespondentMr.PrashantMishra, Advocate forMr.S.N.Relan,Advocate

RFA(OS) 81/2011

RAJENDRASINGHThrough:

...Appellant

Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate

versus

STATE BANK OF INDIAThrough;Mr.PrashantMishra, Advocate forMr.S.N.Relan,Advocate

...Respondent

Mishra, Advocate for

RFA (OS) 79/2011 &comiectedmatters

RFA(QS) 82/2011

PUSHPASINGHThrough:

...Appellant

Mr.AjayVerma, Advocate

versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA

...Respondent

Through. Mr.PrashantMishra,AdvocateforMr.S.N.Relan, Advocate

CORAM:

PRADEEPIMAIMDRAJOGHONwnM.pf'n BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG.I.

1.in thesefourare membersofthe sameAppellantsappealsfamilywho own differentportionsof propertybearingNo.1822/1and 1822/2ChandniChowk, Delhi 110006. All of them inductedState Bank of India as atenantin the respectiveportionof theproperty owned by them."

2.BhupendraSingh, the appellantin RFA(OS) 80/2011,hadlet out an area admeasuring1820 sq.ftand 315.84sq.ft. to theBank. The last agreed rent with respect to the tenantedpremiseswas ^50,050/-per month. Said Appellantterminatedthe tenancyby anoticedated 12.8.1997underSection 106 ofthe Transferof PropertyAct, 1882. The terminationtook effectfrom 5.9.1997. Appellants,Virendra Singh, Pushpa Singh andRajendra Singh, who have filed RFA(OS) No.79/2011,81/2011and 82/2011had each letoutan arearespectively,admeasuring427 sq.ft.to the Bank.The lastagreedrentwith respectto eachSsr79/20ir&c«rnattL'^APPeNantsPage 2 of12

terminatedthe respectivetenancy by separate notices dated7,10.1997issued underSection106 of the Transferof PropertyAct, 1882.The terminationtool< effectfrom 15.11.1997.3.Appellant, Bhupendra SinghfiledApplications inSeptember 1998 under Section 19 of the Slum Area(Improvement&Clearance)Act, 1956 (hereinafterreferredtoas the 'Slum Acf) seel<ing permissionto evict the respondent.Beforethe same could be decidedthe Bank vacatedthe leasedpremises in its possession on 02.09.1999and thus the saidapplicationunderthe Slum Act becameinfructuous.4. filedonAppellantBhupendraSingh CS(OS)No.l911/2000the OriginalSide of this Courtseekingrecoveryof ?27,95,386/-as damagesallegingthatoccupationby the Bankfor the period05.09.1997till 02.09.1999in respectof the portion let out byhim was unauthorized. For the same period, the other threeappellants filed three suits praying for damages in sum of?4,39404/- on the same ground. Pendente lite and futureinterest was prayed to be awarded.5.The followingissuesweresettledin CS(OS)No.l911/2000:the plaintiff is entitled to mesneo7th!piaTntr'P^ra4to 7

2. Whetiierplaintiffis entitledto interest?ifso atwhatrate, on whichamountandforwhichperiod?

3 Whether tenancy of defendant was validiv

terminatedby the noticesdated12thAugust,1997?4. Whethersuit as framed is not maintainableasRFA (OS) 79/2011&connectedmattersPage3of3ofof12

Page3of3ofof12

alleged?

5. Relief?

6.In the other three suits similar issues as above weresettledsaveand exceptthe dateof noticeas per Issue No.3 waschanged to 7^^ October, 1997.

7.Vide acommonjudgmentand decreedated May 5, 2011,the learned Single judge decided Issue No.3 in favour of theAppellants/Landlords,and held that the notices validlyterminated the tenancy.8.But, answeringIssue Nos.l, 2, 4and 5together,the Ld.Single Judge has held that notwithstandingthe fact that thetenancieswerebecausethewas in validlyterminated, propertyaslumarea and was governedby the SlumAct, the RespondentBank continuedto be inofthe demisedas possessionpremisesa 'tenant'since it enjoyedthe protectionunder the Slum ActThe learnedSingleJudgehas heldthatit would beaparadoxicalSituationthatthe Bank could not be evictedwithoutpermissionfrom the competentauthorityunderthe SlumActand yetwouldbe hable to if the claim of thewas pay damages appellantsaccepted. Consequently,all the foursuitswere dismissed9.Admittedly, each of the tenancies between the partieswere With respect to rent payable by the Bank in excess of3,500/-per month and thus the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958was not applicableto the premisesin questfen.10^ It is settledlaw thatatenancyis the resultofacontract

etweentheownerofapropertycalledthe lessorand the lessee

RFA (OS) 79/2011 &connectedmatters

,Page 4 of 12

whereunder the lessor agrees that for an agreed rent the lesseeshall enjoy the possession of the property. The relationshipbetween the lessor and the lessee is governed by the Transferof PropertyAct, 1882. Thus, upon expiryof the lease periodthetenancy expires by efflux of time and if the tenant is allowed tocontinue to occupy the tenanted premises at an agreed rent andmoney is receivedby the lessor from the lessee as rent and istendered by the lessee to the lessor as rent, fresh tenancycomes into being and pertaining to the user being commercial,in the absence of registeredlease agreement,the tenancyisfrom month to month and is determinable by noticecontemplated by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.11.But, various countrieshad passed legislations,especiallyafter the second World War on account of paucity ofaccommodation,to protect the possession of tenants and theseRentControlLegislations'supersededthecontractualobligationsbetween the lessor and the lessee as per the leasedeed or asper the terms of theoral lease.Thus,notwithstandingthe contractualtenancy being terminated, thetenants could not be evicted and were given the label of i.e. the statute conferred them the'Statutory Tenants' uponstatus of tenant. The law to said effect was very clearlyenunciated by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as,(1976) 4 see 855 Damadilal v. Parashram. in the followingwords (para 11):

'M valid terminationof contractual tenancy puts anend to the contractual relationship. On determinationRFA (OS) 79/2011 & connected matters

the landlordbecomesentitled under the law of the land to recoverpossession of the premisesfrom the tenant in duethe landIS hardymapositionto resistgeneraleviction, lawonce ofBecause of%< scarcity t^"^ncyofaccommodationhas been duly determined.and gradualhigh nse m the rents due to various factors thelandlordsweremapositionto exploitthesituationfor"the'hllr'f"''t^-^ethe helpless tenants. Under theiou!TetZent circumstancesofitprotect'Vtoi -i. i.-tenantsagainstharassmentandfcameavariciousiandiordsand appropriatelegislationto bepassed..."^pnace

12. Theandof aRent Controlwas object purpose Legislation

ghlighted by the SupremeCourt in the decision reportedas,n para 23 was observed:- observed:-mmm'^hosebenefittheRentActs^ssMyp!^!^'

It was observed:- observed:-

RFA (OS) 79/201] &connectedmatters

Page 6 of12

13.In the context of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the wordTenant'is defined in clause (ii) of Section 2(1) of the Act, asfollows:

whom or on"2.(I)"tenant" means any person bywhoseaccount orbehalfthe rent ofanypremises is, or,but for speciai contract,. wouid be, payabie, and•includes..

(ii)any personcontinuing in possessiontermination of his tenancy..."

after

14.It is apparent that the definitionof 'tenant' in the DelhiRent ControlAct incorporatesthe conceptof statutorytenant.But since the Delhi Rent Control Act is not applicable totenancies where the monthly rent payable is in excess of^3,500/-,the questionofatenantwhosetenancyhas expiredbyefflux of time or has been otherwisevalidlydeterminedas perthe Transferof PropertyAct, 1882 becominga statutorytenantdoesnot arise.15.The essentialobjectofthe Slum Act is entirelydifferent. Itwas noted by Full Bench of this Court in the decisionreportedas AIR 1972 Del 34 (FB) Bardu Ram v. Ram Chaniic^r |t wasobserved:-

'An essentialobjectoftheSlumAreasActisto enablethe who haveno who ifpoor, otherplacetogo toandthey were evictedto remain in their dwellingsuntilprovision is madefrom betterfive for themelsewhere."

16.For holding as aforesaid,reliancewas placed by the FullBench on the decision of the Supreme Courtreported as AIRRFA (OS) 79/2011 & connectedmatters

Page 7 of 12

1961 SC 1602 Jyot! Pershad v. UT nf nmhi

observed:-

"Obviously,iftheprotectiontiiatisaffordedis readineLuTth''f'sto"hn ,fOtherpiecetogo to, andITf?^^compelled to go out would commodious and moreperhaps m less unhealthysurroundingthanthosefromwhichtheywereevictedan/ZTf^'^rf betteriife for them elsewhere...untiiprovisionThe Act,is no made doubtfor-fandlnrJlandlord,his needs, the"f money^he hepoint hasof sunkview inofthehouseandthepossibleprofitthathemightmal<eifthehouse were either let to other tenants or wasreconstructedandletout, butratherfrom thepointofview of the tenants who have no alternativeaccommodationand who would be strandedIn the17.n-7it?h ,5 - becauseV.orderforof the differenceevictionwerein thepassed." objectand purposeof

the Slum Act and the Delhi Rent ControlAct that In the decision

reportedas AIR 1977 SC 789 Lai Chandbv! R. ^Ks. Radha Kishan',the SupremeCourtobservedas under:-

15. The Slum ClearanceAct was passed, Inter

aha, for the protectionof tenants in slum areasfrom eviction As observed by this Court in Jyotinf n itUnion Terrlto^of De hi, (1962)2SCR 125 =(AIR 1961SC1602)the Slum ClearanceAct looks at the problem ofevictionoftenants from slum areas hotfrom thepoint of view of the landlord and his needs butfrom the of view of tenants who have no pointalternative accommodationand who would beStranded in the if were evicted. The open theypolicy of the Slum ClearanceAct being that thes um dweller should not be evicted unlessalternativeaccommodationis availableto himRFA (OS) 79/2011&connectedmattersPage8of12

Page8of12

we are of the view that the word 'tenant'whichoccurs in Section 19 (l)(a) must for the purposeof advancing the remedy provided by the statutebe construedto include person against whoma decree or order for evictionhas been passed.We might mention that Full Bench of the DelhiHigh Courtin BarduRam DhannaRam v. RamChanderKhibru,AIR 1972Delhi34(FB) hastakenthe sameview,namely,that the word'tenant'in Section19 of the Slum ClearanceActincludesa personagainstwhoma decreeororder of eviction has been passed."

18.The decisions referred to above clearly bring out that thepurpose of the Slum Act is to protect the occupiers of propertiesin slum areas irrespective whether they were tenants or not andrelevant would it be to highlight that the Slum Act only definesan occupier and does not define tenant.The object of theSlum Act is toprotecttheoccupiersfromevictionunlesspermissionis obtainedfrom thecompetentauthorityandrelevant would it be to highlight that as per Section 19, whilegranting or declining' permission the relevant criteria is themeans of the occupier.If the occupier has no means to relocatehjmself, permission for ejectment has not to be grantedinasmuch as it would be presumedthat upon ejectmenttheoccupierwouldcreatea furtherslum.It is well settledthatprotectionunder Section 19 would be available to person,whether he is tenant or an occupier who is poor and is unableto arrange for alternativeaccommodation.19.In the decisionreported as 71 (1978) DLT 318 Dimple Pvt.Ltd.1/5. Harsh Kaur Aaaarwal& Ors. it was observedthat theRFA(OS) 79/2011 & connectedmattersPage9 of 12

protection under Section 19 of the Slum Act is not available to

company,in paras 33 to 35 it was observed as under:-

"33. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr IshwarSahai, on the other hand has argued that the petitionercompanyare jurisdiction.They are not naturalThus the meant for the eviction ofperson. protectionpoor tenantsfrom their respectiveaccommodationscannotbe made avaliableto thepetitioner,i findmyselfin perfectagreementwith the learnedCounsel forrespondentNo. 1.

34.Admittedlythe petitionersare company. Thusthey are Juristic person.A Company is formed when hands with view tooncertainpersonsjoin carryingsome commercial or it can industrial undertaking. Thusbe formed those who havenaturally by persons gotsufficientfunds toon theirbusiness.A carry Companycannot be run by poor persons with no financial meansto run the same. The object and the purpose for theenactmentof theSlum Areas(Improvement&Clearance)Act^1956 was to dear the slums and toprovide protection to poor tenants against harassmentat the hands oflandlords who bring forward and initiateproceedingsfor their viction...

35./ am also tempted, to cite the observations of aSingleJudge ofthis Courtas reported/>? Bismi11a Jan v.Jain Tractors&Auto Spare,1985RajdhaniLawReporter477, (para13)"TheSlumAct was enactedforgivingprotectionto poor individual tenantswho have smallmeansandcannotaffordtogetalternateaccommodationoutside the slum area or within theslum if evicted, if couple of persons with substantialmeans float company which goes into losses, even ifthey are evicted from the premises, they cannot create same own otherslums, particularly when the personsconcerns whichalso have offices at different places".

20.The view taken the learned was earlier on by SingleJudgeRFA (OS) 79/2011&connectedmattersPage10 of12 of1212

Page10 of12 of1212

••-..'-•V

tlfSEFSti-3-S'e*7JiT5ip^

taken another in the decisionas 105 bySingleJudge reported(2003) DLT 422 Shyam Kishore&Ann Vs. RnopSaree Kpndm21.The view is incorrectfor the reason itthe law on ignoresthe subjectthat the concept of contractualtenancy is onlyapplicablewherethe Rent Control Legislationso envisagesandthat ejectmentof an occupierof propertyin slum area, bethe occupiera tenantor otherwiseis entirelydifferentthan theissue of payment of damages for unauthorized use andoccupation.A person occupying slum property uponbecoming liable to pay damages may not be evicted from thepropertyfor non-paymentofdamages, but that would not meanthat damages cannot be recovered. The Slum Act does notregulatethe rent payableby atenantor the chargespayableforunauthorizeduse and occupation. Ifthe RentAct does not applyto slum area, rent payablewould be governedas per contractbetweenthe partiesand damagesfor unauthorizedoccupationas per the general law applicable.

22.We highlightthat under Section 37 of the Slum Act thejurisdictionofa civil Court is barred only insofarit relatesto the no more.''ejectment of an occupier and23.The importofthe definitionoftenant under the Delhi RentControl Act in the Slum Act by the learned Single judge isaccordinglycontrary to law.24.Besides, in the facts of the instant case it has to be notedthatthe bankfrustratedthe permissionsoughtby the appellantsfrom the competent authority under Section 19 of the Slum Act

RFA (OS) 79/2011 & connected matters

Page 11 of 12

by voluntarilysurrenderingpossession. Obviously, the said

applicationbecameinfructuousat thatStage.

25. The respondentState Bank of India is the largest bankhaving thousandsof branchesall overthe country. The objectof the Slum Act could never be to protectsuch giant juristicentitiesto claimprotectionundertheAct. Itcontinuedto occupythe tenanted premises after tenancy was determinedand itsstatuswas thatofan unauthorizedoccupantand thusdamageshave to be paid.

26. The appealsare accordinglyallowed. Impugnedjudgment

and decreedated05.05.2011is setaside.CS(OS)No.1911/2011,

CS(OS) No.2552/2000, CS(OS) No.2553/2000 and .CS(OS)IMo.2554/2000are restoredwithadirectionto the learnedSingleJudgeto decidethe quantumofdamages/mesneprofitspayableto the appellants.

(S.P.GARG)JUDGE

T-r- rv^KAvc

Deceniber 12, 2011

(PRADEEPNANDRAJOG)JUDGE

RFA (OS) 79/2011 &connectedmatters

Page 12 of 12