S. Harnam Singh vs Ganga Ram and Another

Kapur, J.—This judgment will dispose of two revisions which have arisen out of the same judgment and decree passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge in appeal.

Harnam Singh was the tenant of the house in dispute for about 11 years before the suit. On the 29th of April, 1948, Ganga Ram, an Advocate, and Chandar Bhan, a Medical Practitioner, purchased the house in dispute. At that time also Harman Singh was a tenant of a portion of the house. Sometime after the purchase the new landlords asked and the tenant gave up one room from his possession to the landlords and the rent was reduced from Rs. 17-15-0 to Rs. 15-0-0. This was incorporated in a rent note, Exhibit P. 7, which recites the giving up of a room and of the reduction of rent.

On the 6th of October, 1946, the landlords gave a notice for eviction to the tenant which is written very closely on a post-card, and it is difficult to read it. In this notice it was said that f the tenant should give up the premises by the 31st of December, 1948 - Counsel for the landlords sub-mits before me that the date is the 31st of October 1948. I have looked at it with a magnifying glass and I cannot say what exactly is written there. In this notice the ground of eviction was expressly stated to be ''bona fide'' needs of the landlords and incidentally it was mentioned that arrears of rent should also be paid.

On the 16th of November, 1948, a suit was brought for eviction of the tenant on the grounds, (1) two months'' rent was in arrears, (2) the tenant was damaging the house, (3) the house was required bona fide'' for the use of the landlords themselves and (4) that the tenant was creating a nuisance. (The tenant in reply pleaded that he had been a tenant for a period of ten years and therefore under the law he could not be evicted and that he had given up one room at the request of the landlords and they could not now sue for eviction and the other allegations were denied.

The first Court held that toe arrears of rent were paid on the first day of hearing as required by law, that there was neither any damage to the property nor was the tenant creating any nuisance that the Plaintiffs did genuinely need the premises for their own use, but the tenant could not find any premises for himself and that there was no new tenancy, and, therefore, he dismissed the suit. On appeal the Senior Subordinate. Judges in his, judgment, which is characterised by want of clarity and which gives neither the points in dispute nor what the findings are, has held, and this is what I take from Counsel to be the findings, that the rent was deposited on the first date of hearing as required by the proviso u/s 9(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1947, that the tenant was neither creating a nuisance nor was he damaging the house and that the landlords did ''bona fide'' need the house and he ordered a portion of the premises in possession of the tenant to be given over to the landlords and thus allowed the appeal to that extent.

Mr. Partap Singh has submitted that his client could not be evicted from the premises because of the provisions of Section 9(1)(e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1947, which gives one of the grounds for eviction and says that.

purely residential premises are required ''bona fide'' by the landlord who is the owner of such premises...for himself or his family, that he neither has nor is able to secure other suitable accommodation, and that he has acquired his interest in the premises at a date prior to the beginning-of the tenancy or the 2nd of June, 1944, whichever is later....

The submission is that Harman Singh was a tenant before the 2nd of June, 1944, and the landlords have acquired their interest in the premises at a date after the 2nd of June, 1944, and, therefore, he cannot be evicted from any part of the premises in dispute.

In reply Mr. Gosain submits that by executing the document, Exhibit P. 7, a new tenancy was created, and lie relies on ''Attar Chand v. Chandu Lal'' AIR 1929 Lah 291, where it was held that any variation of rate of rent in a deed of lease would require registration.

He next relies on ''Lalit Mohan v. Gopali Chuck Coal Co. Ltd.'' 39 Cal 284 , where it was held that where the rent is reduced it will require registration. In reply to this part of the case Mr. Partap Singh submitted that merely because rent was reduced it did not amount to a fresh tenancy, and he relies on Charu Chandra Mitra Vs. Sambhu Nath Pandey and Others, where it was held that a compromise which is submitted to Court in the form of a petition and which varies the terms of a lease does not require registration as a document varying the terms of a lease is not a creation of a lease.

He next relies on a Single Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ramrao Nilkanth Nadkarni Vs. Shrimant Purnanand Saraswati Swami, where Kania, J., as he then was, held that where there is a variation in the terms of the lease about the rent, the document containing those terms does not require registration as a new lease.

In my opinion, the document, Exhibit P. 7, does constitute a new lease. There was not only variation in the amount of the rent which was to be paid but a portion of the building which was in the occupation of the tenant was also given up. Exhibit P. 7 relates to the portion which was already in the occupation of the tenant but to a smaller portion and there was a variation as to the terms of the rent also and the terms were to be effective as from the 1st of August, 1948. This was a fresh lease, and, therefore, the protection given by Section 9(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1947, is not available to the tenant in the present case, and I, therefore, repel the contention raised by Mr. Partap Singh.

Mr. Gosain has also submitted that the amount of rent was not paid on the first day of hearing. There was however no proper notice as to the arrears of rent as required under the provisions of Section 9, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1947, and, therefore, this plen is not available to the Plaintiff. Although I do not agree as to the findings of the Courts below on this point, it is not necessary in this case to go into this matter.

The other points as to the tenant being a nuisance or is damaging the property have not been made out, and therefore the tenant has not made himself liable for eviction on those grounds. Moreover these points do not find a prominent place in the notice of the landlords.

12a. In the result, this revision of the tenant fails and is dismissed with costs.

The revision which has been filed by the landlords is barred by time. There is no affidavit to support the contention raised by Mr. Gosain that the judgment was not pronounced on a particular day or that his clients did not know of the date of the judgment. In the absence of an affidavit, I do not think I should, allow Mr. Gosain to raise these points before me. This revision is, therefore, dismissed but there will be no order as to costs of this revision.

In the result both the revisions are dismissed and the rules are discharged.