# was delivered by · Ram Nath & Another v. M/s. Ram Nath Chhittar Mal & Others - **Citation:** [1961] 1 S.C.R. 600 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1960-03-01 - **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 401 to 403 of 1960 - **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, J. L. Kapur, P. B. Gajendraoadkar, K. SuBBA RAO a.nd K. N. WANCHOO - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/was-delivered-by-ram-nath-another-v-m-s-ram-nath-chhittar-mal-others-2197 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote Suit for ejectmrnt-Bona fide requirements for rebuildi,,gDelhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, I952 (38 of I952), ss. IJ(g), I5. Three separate suits for eviction by the appellant were brought against the.three respondents within the framework of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act and were based on the provisions of s. 13(g) for the bona fide requirements of rebuilding. Terms of compromise which were substantially in accordance with the provisions of s. 15 of the Act were put in by the parties and decrees were passed in the suits, under which the premises had to be vacated by the respondents on a specified day, which condition the respondents failed to observe and actually handed over the possession of the premises in suit at a later date. On completion of the building the respondents filed an application under s. 15 of the Act for their bemg put into possession. The High Court inter a!ia held that though s. 15 of the Act was not applicable to the proceedings yet the respondents could impose the terms of the decree and the proceedings could be treated as execution proceedings for enforcmg the said terms. The appellants challenged the judgments of the High Court and contended that on the facts of the case and the circumstances, the decrees in suit under s. 13(1) proviso (d) shows that the order was passed and a decree made m accordance with the terms of s. 15 of the Act and further it was significant that the respondents themselves had made the application to the Court under s. 15 of the Act. The respondents submitted that the decree was not one under s. 15 of the Act because the decree was based on a compromise and the time for giving possession was not of the essence of the contract : Held, that as the tenant respondents did not deliver possession of the premises to the landlord appellant on or before the dates specified in the decree, the provisions of s. 15 (3) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (38 of 1952) were not available to them and they were not entitled to be put in possession. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 401 to 403 of 1960. A ppea.ls by specie.I lea. ve from the judgment a.nd orders dated March 1, 1960, of the Punjab High Court I _, ... 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 601 (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Revision Cases Nos. 166-D, 167-D and 168-D of 1958. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. S. Ohadha and R. S. Narukl, for the appellants (in all the appeals). O. B. Aggarwala and B. Kishore, for the respondents (in C. A. No. 401 of60). O. B. Aggarwakl, R. M. Gupta and G. 0. Mathur, for the respondents (In C. As. Nos. 402 & 403 of 60). 1960. September 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by · Ram Nath & Another v. M/s. Ram Nath Chhittar Mal & Others .KAPUR J.-These appeals are directed against Kapur J. three judgments and orders of the Punjab High Court in three Civil Revisions Nos. }66-D, 167-D and 168~D · which were brought by the appellants against three of .their tenants under s. 35 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act (XXXVIII of 1952), hereinafter termed - the Act. The appellants in all the three appeals are the landlords and the respondents in the three appeals are three different tenants. The appellants filed three separate suits for the eviction of their three tenants under cl. (g) of proviso to s. 13(1) of the Act on the ground that the premises were bona fide required for purposes of rebuilding. On February 27, 1953, the parties in all .the three suits entered into a compromise in the following terms: "We have·compromised the case with the plain- · tiff. A decree may be passed for Rs. 82/8/- on account of rent in suit and for ejectment in respect of the shop in. suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. The defendants will vacate the shop by 4.3.53 and · hand over possession to the plaintiff and the plaintiff will hand over its possession again (second time) to the defendants within six months from 4-3-53 after constructing it afresh. We shall pay such rent as this court wi ## Text SeplembeY 8. 600 SUPH.EME COURT REPORTS RAM NATH AND ANOTHER v. [1961) M/s. RAM NATH CHHITTAR MAL AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDRAOADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO a.nd K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Suit for ejectmrnt-Bona fide requirements for rebuildi,,gDelhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, I952 (38 of I952), ss. IJ(g), I5. Three separate suits for eviction by the appellant were brought against the.three respondents within the framework of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act and were based on the provisions of s. 13(g) for the bona fide requirements of rebuilding. Terms of compromise which were substantially in accordance with the provisions of s. 15 of the Act were put in by the parties and decrees were passed in the suits, under which the premises had to be vacated by the respondents on a specified day, which condition the respondents failed to observe and actually handed over the possession of the premises in suit at a later date. On completion of the building the respondents filed an application under s. 15 of the Act for their bemg put into possession. The High Court inter a!ia held that though s. 15 of the Act was not applicable to the proceedings yet the respondents could impose the terms of the decree and the proceedings could be treated as execution proceedings for enforcmg the said terms. The appellants challenged the judgments of the High Court and contended that on the facts of the case and the circumstances, the decrees in suit under s. 13(1) proviso (d) shows that the order was passed and a decree made m accordance with the terms of s. 15 of the Act and further it was significant that the respondents themselves had made the application to the Court under s. 15 of the Act. The respondents submitted that the decree was not one under s. 15 of the Act because the decree was based on a compromise and the time for giving possession was not of the essence of the contract : Held, that as the tenant respondents did not deliver possession of the premises to the landlord appellant on or before the dates specified in the decree, the provisions of s. 15 (3) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (38 of 1952) were not available to them and they were not entitled to be put in possession. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 401 to 403 of 1960. A ppea.ls by specie.I lea. ve from the judgment a.nd orders dated March 1, 1960, of the Punjab High Court I _, ... 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 601 (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Revision Cases Nos. 166-D, 167-D and 168-D of 1958. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. S. Ohadha and R. S. Narukl, for the appellants (in all the appeals). O. B. Aggarwala and B. Kishore, for the respondents (in C. A. No. 401 of60). O. B. Aggarwakl, R. M. Gupta and G. 0. Mathur, for the respondents (In C. As. Nos. 402 & 403 of 60). 1960. September 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by · Ram Nath & Another v. M/s. Ram Nath Chhittar Mal & Others .KAPUR J.-These appeals are directed against Kapur J. three judgments and orders of the Punjab High Court in three Civil Revisions Nos. }66-D, 167-D and 168~D · which were brought by the appellants against three of .their tenants under s. 35 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act (XXXVIII of 1952), hereinafter termed - the Act. The appellants in all the three appeals are the landlords and the respondents in the three appeals are three different tenants. The appellants filed three separate suits for the eviction of their three tenants under cl. (g) of proviso to s. 13(1) of the Act on the ground that the premises were bona fide required for purposes of rebuilding. On February 27, 1953, the parties in all .the three suits entered into a compromise in the following terms: "We have·compromised the case with the plain- · tiff. A decree may be passed for Rs. 82/8/- on account of rent in suit and for ejectment in respect of the shop in. suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. The defendants will vacate the shop by 4.3.53 and · hand over possession to the plaintiff and the plaintiff will hand over its possession again (second time) to the defendants within six months from 4-3-53 after constructing it afresh. We shall pay such rent as this court will fix ". Thereupon the court passed the following order and a decree followed thereon :- "In terms of the statements of .the plaintiff, defendant and counsel for defendants-a decree for Rs. 82/8/- on account of rent in suit be passed in favour Nam .\'ath 6· A11otlur v. ft! ;s. Ham .Vath Chhillar Alai &- Others /(af'"' ]. G02 St:PRK\IE COURT REPORTS [ l!Hll] of the plaintiff a.gs.inst the defendants. Also decrco for Pjectmcnt be pa.sRCd in rcsprct of the shop in suit in favour of tb'e plaintiff against the defendants a.nd tba.t the defonda.nts do give possession of the shop in suit by 4-3-53 to the plaintiff a.nd t ha.t the plaintiff after constructing it afresh within six months from 4-3-53 give it to the defendants. From out ·of the monoy deposited, a. sum of Rs. 82/8/- be paid to the plaintiff and the ha.la.nee returned to the defonda.nts. The defendants shall be responsible to pa.y the rent fixed by the court ".' According to the decree the possession was to he given to the appell1rnts on March 4, 1953, but it was actually delivered by the three respondents between ~arch 7 and 15, I 953. On the completion of the building the three respoudents filed three separate applications under s. 15 of the Act for their being put into poRsession. These 11.pplications were filed on October 7, 1953. The High Court held that the compromise did not comprise 11.ny matter which was not the subject matter of the suit; that tho respondents could enforc€l the terms of the decree in the proceedings which they took, i.e., under s. 15 of the Act; that time was not of the essence of the compromise and therefore of the decree and consequently in spite of the poAsession of the premises having been given by the respondents a.fter the date specified in the deere<1, i.e., Ma.rch (, 1953, t.be respondents were l'ntitlcd to enforce the decree hy execution and apply for possession being restored to them; at a.ny rato they could a.pply for restitution under tho inherent powers of thn Court. Thi1s the High Court was of the opinion th1tt. though s. l!i(2) of the Aet wa.s not a.pplicabln to tbe proceedings they could bo treated 11.s Execution proceeding8. AgainRt this judgment and ordn the appellants have come in appeal to this court by special lea. ve. Under s. 13 of the Act the respondents a.re protected 11.gainst cvirtio11 <·xrcpting for the r~a,;cms gil'en in the proYiso. The appellnnts . had filed the original suits for eviction und<>r s 13, proviso (g), wbinh wa.s a.s under:- 1 S.C.R. SUPl~EME COURT REPORTS 603 Section 13 :-" Notwithsts,niling s,nything to the contmry conts,ined in s,ny other law or any contract, no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall he passed by any court in favour of the landlord against any tens,nt (including s, tenant whose tenancy is terminated): Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any suit or other proceeding for such recovery of possession if the Court is satisfied- . (g) that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding the premises or for the replacement of the premises by any building or for the erection of other building and that such building or rebuilding cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated;". . ·· · Thus when the suits ·were brought the provisions of the Act were invoked, The decrees passed were on the basis that the premises were required by the landlord for rebuilding which falls under s. 13 and the decrees also incorpors,ted the requirements of s. 15 which provides:- · "The Court shall, when passing any· decree or order on the grounds specified in clause (f) or clause (g) of the proviso to sub. section ( 1) of section 13 ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the premises or part thereof from which he is to be evicted and if the tenant so elects, ·shall record the fact of the electic'ln in the decree or order and specify therein the date on or before which he shall deliver possession so as to enable the landlord to co:nmence the work of repairs or building or rebuilding, as the case may be. (2) If the tenant delivers possession on or before the date specified in the decree or order, the landlord shall, on the completion of the work of repairs or building or rebuilding place the tenant in occupat.ion of the premises or part thereof. (3) If, after the tenant has delivered possession on or before the date specified in the decree or order the landlord fails to commence the work·of repairs or building or rebuilding within ;o,ne month Of the specified date or fails to complete tlfe work in a. reasonable Ra1n .1.Vath & Another v. M/s. Ra:m Nath Chhittar Mal & Others Ire not put into possession on the Chhittar Mal same terms as before, was tQ be settled by court and & Others that is what was done under the terms of the consent decree. The applications for being put into possession which were filed by the respondents were really under s. 15(3) of the Act. As the respondents did not deliver possession to the appellants on or before the dates specified in the decree the provisions of s. 15 contained in sub-s. (3) of that Act were not available to them and they were not entitled to be put into possession as prayed by them. It was argued that the appellants had takef1 posses. sion of the premises. after the specified date without protest and had even accepted rent upto then and were therefore estopped from raising that defence. The appellants had conceded in the courts below that that plea could be raised in a suit if it was brought. In the view we have taken we think it unnecessary to express any opinion on this point. The High Court was, in our opinion, in error in ordering possession to be delivered to the respondents. The appeals must therefore be allowed and the judg. ments and orders of the High Court set aside. The appellants will have their costs in this Court .. One set of hearing costs. Appeal allowed. Kapur J.