CASE ANALYSIS : LAL CHAND V.

RADHA
KRISHNA, 1977 SC 789
Code of Civil Procedure & Limitation Act : Internal Assessment -1

NAME: SRISHTI ORAON

Court Supreme Court of India

Decided On Dec-17-1976

Judge P.K. Goswami and; Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.

Reported in AIR1977SC789; (1977)2SCC88;

[1977]2SCR522

Acts Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections

11 - Order 41, Rule 4; Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance)

Appellant Lal Chand (Dead) by Lrs. and ors.

Respondent Radha Krishan

...to bring fresh suit for evicting appellants from premises on ground floor - authorities
under slum clearance act exclusively entrusted with power to determine whether decree for
eviction be permitted to be executed and if so, to what extent - held, present suit filed by
respondent barred by principles of res judicata. - sections 3 &4: cruelty and dowry death
appellant husband and in-laws of deceased allegedly burnt her alive for non-fulfillment of dowry
demand - it was categorically held that victim died of burns - it was not a case of suicide -
reference was made to letter written by victim to conclude that there was demand of dowry and
torture meted out to her - accusations were established by cogent evidence - minor variations in
evidence, by that order, the respondent filed an appeal to the administrator under section 20 of
the slum clearance act, 1956. The appeal was heard by the chief commissioner of Delhi who
confirmed the order of the competent authority. Pursuant to his order, the defendants handed
over possession of the two rooms on the second floor to the respondent. This, however, was not
the end of the matter. Having obtained possession of a part of the premises, the respondent
embarked upon a fresh round of litigation giving rise to this appeal. he filed a regular civil suit
no. 435 of 1966 against Lal Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram for possession of the remaining
rooms on the ground floor. that suit was decreed by the trial court on may 4, 1967. Nand Lal and
Kakibai were not impleaded to the suit.
Relevancy

Definition of tenant given under the Delhi Ajmer Rent Control Act , 1972 (in short Rent Control
Legislation) would not be applicable to the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956
(In short Slum Clearance Act). The word ‘tenant’ used Slum Clearance Act suggests a wider
meaning than what is given under Rent Control Legislation.

The respondent let out a portion of hid house consisting of five rooms on ground floor and two
rooms on second floor to one Lal Chand, the appellant herein. He filed a suit in the court of Sub-
Judge for eviction of the appellant and four others; Kesho Ram, Jhangi Ram, Nand Lal and Kaki
Bai alleging that Lal Chand had sublet the premises to them. The eviction of these persons were
sought by the landlord on thr ground that (1) he required the premises for his own use and
occupation, (2) he wanted to provide certain essential amenities for himself necessitating
reconstruction and that (3) the tenants were in arrears of rent. Vide judgment June 6, 1959, the
Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi decreed the suit on the first ground only and rejected the other two
contentions. In appeal the learned Senior Sub-Judge confirmed the finding of the trial court but
he thought that the needs of the respondent would be met adequately if he were given possession
of the two rooms on the second floor only. Feeling, however, that there was no provision in the
Rent Control Legislation, under which the suit was filed, for giving the possession of a part of
the demised premises to the landlord, the learned Judge confirmed the decree of the trial Court.
The High Court upheld that judgment dated 6-2-1962 in Civil Revision on the ground that the
landlord required the entire premises for his personal use and occupation. Since the suit property
is situated in a slum area, the respondent filed an application under section 19(2) of the Slum
Clearance Act for permission of the ‘competent authority’ to execute the decree for possession
obtained by him against Lal Chand and others. The ‘competent authority’ after taking into
account the factors mentioned in section 19(4) of the Act granted the requisite permission only in
respect of two rooms situated on second floor. Consequently permissions were refused to execute
the decree in regard to the premises situated on the ground floor.
 Even the Chief Commissioner of Delhi in appeal confirmed the order of the ‘competent
authority’. Pursuant to this order the defendants handed over the possession of the two rooms on
the second floor to the respondent. Having obtained possession of a part of the premises the
respondent initiated a fresh round of litigation giving rise to this appeal. He filed a regular Civil
Suit No. 435/1966 against Lal Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram for possession of the
remaining rooms on the ground floor. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 4th May, 1967.
Nand Lal and Kaki Bai were not impleaded to the suit as presumably because they had
surrendered possession of the two rooms on the second floor.
 Critical Analysis and Judgment

 Feeling that there was no provision in the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, under
which the suit was filed, for giving possession of a part of the demised premises to the landlord,
the learned Judge confirmed the decree of the trial court.

 Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, Lal Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram
filed Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1967 in the Court of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi.

 These legal representatives and the two other defendants, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram,
filed Second Appeal No. 316 of 1967 in the High Court of Delhi against the judgment of the
learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge.

 The learned Judge confirmed the judgment of the first appellate court and dismissed the
second appeal.

 In taking the view that the legal representatives of Lal Chand had no right to continue the
appeal after Lal Chand's death, the High Court relied on a decision of this Court in Anand Nivas
(P) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi1.

 Whether Lal Chand was a statutory tenant or not and whether the ratio in Anand Nivas
case would apply to the present proceedings which arise out of the Delhi Rent Control Act of
1958, the appeals could not have been dismissed by the first appellate court and the High Court
on the ground that Lal Chand had died without leaving a heritable interest and his legal
representatives had no right to continue the appeal.

 The first appellate court ought to have heard the appeal on merits and decided the
question whether the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act operated as a bar to the
maintainability of the suit brought by the respondent,
 The High Court observes in its judgment that Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram were
subtenants and they had no independent right to continue the appeal.

 The trial court held that Lal Chand ceased to be a tenant after the passing of the ejectment
decree and the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit for possession against him was
not barred under any of the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act.

 We might mention that a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Bardu Ram Dhanna
Ram v. Ram Chander Khibru AIR 1972 Delhi 34 has taken the same view, namely, that the word
"tenant" in Section 19 of the Slum Clearance Act includes a person against whom a decree or
order of eviction has been passed.

 37-A. Bar of jurisdiction.-Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court
shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the competent authority or any other person
is empowered by or under this Act, to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court
or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power
conferred by or under this Act."

 No civil court can have jurisdiction in respect of that matter, namely, in respect of the
question whether a tenant of a building in a slum area should or should not be permitted to be
evicted therefrom.