1976 (12) TMI 195 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grounds for Eviction
2. Permission under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956
3. Right to Continue Appeal after Tenant's Death
4. Definition of 'Tenant' under the Slum Clearance Act
5. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 37-A of the Slum Clearance Act
6. Application of Res Judicata

Summary:

1. Grounds for Eviction:
The respondent sought eviction of Lal Chand and others on three grounds: (1) personal use and occupation, (2) need for re-construction to provide essential amenities, and (3) arrears of rent. The Sub-Judge decreed the suit solely on the first ground, which was confirmed by the Senior Sub-Judge and the Punjab High Court.

2. Permission under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956:
The respondent filed an application u/s 19(2) of the Slum Clearance Act for permission to execute the eviction decree. The competent authority allowed execution only for the two rooms on the second floor, which was upheld by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. The respondent then filed a fresh suit for possession of the remaining ground floor rooms, which was decreed by the Trial Court.

3. Right to Continue Appeal after Tenant's Death:
During the appeal, Lal Chand died, and his legal representatives sought to be brought on record. The appellate Judge dismissed the appeal, holding that Lal Chand's statutory tenancy did not survive his death. The High Court upheld this view, relying on the precedent set in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalvanji Pedhi, which stated that a statutory tenant's right to remain in possession is personal and does not devolve on heirs.

4. Definition of 'Tenant' under the Slum Clearance Act:
The High Court's reliance on the definition of 'tenant' under the Delhi Rent Control Act was misplaced. The Slum Clearance Act aims to protect tenants in slum areas from eviction unless alternative accommodation is available. Therefore, the word 'tenant' in Section 19(1)(a) includes a person against whom a decree or Order for eviction has been passed.

5. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 37-A of the Slum Clearance Act:
Section 37-A bars civil courts from entertaining matters which the competent authority is empowered to determine. Since the competent authority had already decided on the execution of the eviction decree, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the fresh suit for possession.

6. Application of Res Judicata:
The respondent's fresh suit for possession was barred by the principle of res judicata. The competent authority's decision to allow partial execution of the eviction decree was final and binding. The principle of res judicata prevents re-litigation of the same issue between the same parties.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's suit for possession. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs.