Open land sans structure not part of premises, says Supreme Court

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, JUNE 18. If an `open plot' of land is let out - on which a tenant raises a structure on his own - it does not fall within the meaning of the term `premises' under the rent control legislation, the Supreme Court has ruled.

It is immaterial whether the tenant raised structures before or after the creation of tenancy and in either case, he alone will have the proprietary rights to the structure and not the landlord, a Bench said.

Mr. Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, delivering the verdict, set aside a judgment of the Delhi High Court which dismissed a `suit' from a landlord (appellant) seeking eviction of a tenant from the `suit plot'. The High Court dismissing the appellant's `suit' affirmed the conclusion of the courts below that the `suit plot' was `premises' as defined under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and therefore, his `suit' was not maintainable under Section 50 of the Act. (According to this Section, if the `suit' for eviction of tenants relates to any `premises' as defined under the Act, the `civil court' cannot entertain the same).

The Supreme Court Bench, which included Mr. Justice S. N. Phukan, held that the `suit plot' (a vacant land of the appellant measuring 9x7 feet) adjacent to a `big room' did not fall within the meaning of the term `premises' under the Act, and therefore, his (landlord's) `suit' for eviction of the respondent from the `suit plot' was `maintainable', not being barred under Section 50 of the Act.

(The big room was let out earlier by the appellant to the respondent under a separate agreement and the subject matter of the `suit' for eviction related only to the `vacant land' adjacent to the room. The `vacant land' was let out to the respondent under a separate agreement).

The Bench, citing relevant `case law' on the legal issue decided under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, allowed the appellant's appeal and decreed the appellant's `suit'.

``The term `premises' under the Act implies the subject-matter of tenancy in respect of which there is jural relationship between landlord and tenant and in respect of which the quantum of rent is agreed upon between them,'' the Bench pointed out.

When, in any case, the question arose whether an open plot of land or a plot with structures thereon was let out, the Court had to determine the same on the facts of that case.

If `the plot with structure' was let out, it would fall within the meaning of the term `premises' but if an `open plot without any structure' was let out then it would not fall within the meaning of the term `premises', the Bench noted.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Excavation indicates 'Harappan capital' in Haryana
Next     : Panel wants tribunal for defence personnel