Ved Prakash Vs. Anand Prakash

Ved Prakash vs Anand Prakash

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 08, 1976

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757918

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/757918
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: S.N. Modi, J.
Decided On: Jul 08, 1976
Case Number: S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 125 of 1973
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 13(1)(i)--Tenant building a suitable house--Held, he is not entailed to protection under the Act.;(b) Question - Whether the house was suitable for defendant's residence as used in Section 13(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent &amp...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ved Prakash

Respondent

Anand Prakash

Legal References

Cases Referred: Dr. Rajeshwar Dayal v. Oban Kuaar
Reported In: 1976WLN(UC)246

Excerpt

.....house--held, he is not entailed to protection under the act.;(b) question - whether the house was suitable for defendant's residence as used in section 13(1)(i) of the rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) act is a question of fact.;(c) rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) act, 1950 - section 13(1)(i)--tenant selling suitable house built by him--held landlord's right to evict tenant cannot be divested. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - ' it is not in dispute that the defendant bad taken a loan from the government under the law income group housing scheme and constructed a house in bhimganj mandi, kota. -(1) notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is..........rent & eviction) act, 1950. it is submitted by the earned counsel for the defendant (bat the house constructed by the defendant was not suitable for his residence. whether the house was suitable for the residence on the defendant is a question of fact. the lower appellate court has found on the basis of the evidence of dw 2 suahil kumar that the house constructed by the defendant was suitable for his residence; i am therefore not inclined to disturb the finding of the lower appellate court.4. the next contention of the earned counsel for the defendant is that since the house constructed by the defendant was sold during the pendency of the suit, the case does not fall within the ambit of section 13(1)(i), and the defendant can still claim the protection under section 13 of the act. this very point was raised before hon'ble kan singh, j. in dr. rajeshwar dayal v. oban kuaar 1973 wln 278 dealing with this question hon'ble kan singh, j. observed.the next question is whether the sale of the house by the defendant during the pendency of the suit entitles him to claim the protection of section 13 of the act. it has to be borne in mind that the act of alienation of the house was a voluntary act of the defendant. once the liability for eviction has arisen under section 13 of the acton account of the tenant having built a house then the right to sue for eviction has accrued to the landlord and that right could be taken away only by an express provision of the statute or by necessary intendment. section 13 does not lay down as to what would happen if the tenant has once built a suitable residence and has then disposed it of during the pendency of the suit. therefore, the section cannot be resorted to for divesting the right of seeking an eviction which has accrued to the landlord.with reject, i entirely agree with the above proposition laid down by han'ble kan singh, j. the learned district judge, in the circumstances, tightly decreed the suit.5. there is no force in this.....

Full Judgment

S.N. Modi, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant-tenant against the judgment of the District Judge, Kota, dated November 18, 1972 in a suit for ejectment.

2. The eviction of the defendant-appellant from the f tilt premises was sought on the ground of his having constructed his own house in the same city. The issue that was tried was 'whether the defendant had constructed his own house in Kota and in this way the defendant is in possession of a vacant house for residential purpose and on this ground, the plaintiff U entitled to eject the defendant.' It is not in dispute that the defendant bad taken a loan from the Government under the Law Income Group Housing Scheme and constructed a house in Bhimganj Mandi, Kota. It was found by the appellate court that the defendant had constructed the new house and he had also resided in that house for some time. It was further found by the appellate court that after some time, the newly constructed house was let out to one Malhotra for Rs. 270/- per month. The appellate court also relied upon the statement of DW. 2 Sushil Kumar, who had stated that the newly constructed house by the defendant was a suitable house for residential purposes. It is also not in dispute that the suit for eviction was instituted against the defendant on January 30, 1970 and the newly constructed house was sold by the defendant on February 1, 1971.

3. Section 13(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, runs as follows,-

13. Eviction of tenants. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied-

....

(i) that the tenant has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence; or

....

It is abundantly clear from Section 13(1)(i) that if the tenant has built a suitable house, no protection can be granted to him from eviction und r the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. It is submitted by the earned Counsel for the defendant (bat the house constructed by the defendant was not suitable for his residence. Whether the house was suitable for the residence on the defendant is a question of fact. The lower appellate court has found on the basis of the evidence of DW 2 Suahil Kumar that the house constructed by the defendant was suitable for his residence; I am therefore not inclined to disturb the finding of the lower appellate court.

4. The next contention of the earned Counsel for the defendant is that since the house constructed by the defendant was sold during the pendency of the suit, the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 13(1)(i), and the defendant can still claim the protection under Section 13 of the Act. This very point was raised before Hon'ble Kan Singh, J. in Dr. Rajeshwar Dayal v. Oban Kuaar 1973 WLN 278 Dealing with this question Hon'ble Kan Singh, J. observed.

The next question is whether the sale of the house by the defendant during the pendency of the suit entitles him to claim the protection of Section 13 of the Act. It has to be borne in mind that the act of alienation of the house was a voluntary act of the defendant. Once the liability for eviction has arisen under Section 13 of the Acton account of the tenant having built a house then the right to sue for eviction has accrued to the landlord and that right could be taken away only by an express provision of the statute or by necessary intendment. Section 13 does not lay down as to what would happen if the tenant has once built a suitable residence and has then disposed it of during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the section cannot be resorted to for divesting the right of seeking an eviction which has accrued to the landlord.

With reject, I entirely agree with the above proposition laid down by Han'ble Kan Singh, J. The learned District judge, in the circumstances, Tightly decreed the suit.

5. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1976 Same Parties Ved Prakash vs Anand Prakash Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge S.N. Modi, J.

Tenancy