MISS S. SANYAL V. GIAN CHAND, AIR 1968 SC 438
FACTS
The appellant Miss Sanyal has since 1942 been a tenant of a house, a part of which is used for a Girls' School and the rest for residential purposes.
The respondent Gian Chand purchased the house from the owners by a sale deed dated September 19, 1956, and commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Delhi against the appellant for a decree in ejectment in respect of the house, on the ground that the respondent required the house bona fide for his own residence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Trial Court: dismissed the suit.
Senior Subordinate Judge: dismissed an appeal holding that the house being let for purposes non-residential as well as residential, a decree in ejectment could not be granted u/s 13(1)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.
High Court: held that on finding recorded by the first Appellate Court a decree in ejectment limited to that portion of the house which was used for residential purposes by the tenant could be granted, and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for demarcating these portions which were being used for residence and to pass a decree in ejectment from those specific portions of the house.
ISSUE
Did the High Court of Punjab rightly exercise it’s jurisdiction?
JUDGEMENT
The Court observed that, the High Court erred. The jurisdiction of the Court may be exercised under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act only when the premises are let for residential purposes and not when the premises being let for composite purposes, are used in specific portions for purposes residential and non-residential.
The contract of tenancy is a single and indivisible contract, and in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect it is not open to the Court to divide it into two contracts-one of letting for residential purposes, and the other for non-residential purposes, and to grant relief under Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Act limited to the portion of the demised property which "is being used" for residential purposes.
In this case the letting not being solely for residential purposes, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to pass the order appealed from. It was noted that a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Kanwar Behari v. Smt. Vindhya Devi has held in construing Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958, material part whereof is substantially in the same terms as S. 13(l)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, that "where the building let for residence is the entire premises, it is not open to the Court to further sub-divide the premises and order eviction with respect to part thereof.”
Therefore, it was held that the order of the Punjab High Court was without jurisdiction and was set aside. The appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge was restored.