PRABHA ARORA AND ANR. v. BRIJ MOHINI ANAND AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 721

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

PRABHA ARORA AND ANR. v. BRIJ MOHINI ANAND AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

( f I ' '""" PRABHA ARORA AND ANR. V. BRIJ MOHINI ANAND AND ORS. OCTOBER 31, 2007 [A. K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. ] ~ -"· Rent Control and Eviction-Eviction suit-On the ground of using thepremisesfor earningpurpose-Eviction denied by Prescribed Authority-Allowed by the Appellate Authority and High Court- Subsequent event duringpendency ofappeal-On appeal, held: In the facts ofthe case and in view ofsubsequent event, groundfor eviction -l disappeared-Landlady not entitled for eviction-UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation ofLetting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-s. 21 (1) (a). Respondent-landlady filed an application u/s 21(1)(a) ofU. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation ofLetting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against the appellant-tenants. Eviction was sought on the ground that she wanted the premises for running tuition/coachingclasses in order to augment her income. Prescribed authority rejected her application. Appellate Authority as well as High Court upheld her claim.

Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that during pendency ofthe appeal before --? the appellate authority, a Trustwas created in respect ofthe property in question and in view ofthat the very purpose for which the eviction was sought, disappeared. Respondent contended that the purpose did not disappear because the application for eviction was filed on the ground that the respondent wanted to do charitable work. \- . >\ Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: In view ofthe creation ofthe Trust during pendency of -\ y the litigation, the purpose for which eviction was sought of the tenants through the release application has disappeared. The trust deed nowhere mentions that any income ofthe Trust will be given to the petitioner who filed the release application. In fact, Section 51 of the Trust Act debars a trustee from using the trust property for his own profit. The purpose mentioned in the petition under Section 21 ofU. P.

Urban Buildings (Regulation ofLetting, Rent and A Eviction) Act, 1972 was not for doing charitable work. However, after ...... r the execution of the trust deed, the premises in dispute now belongs to the Trust. The need mentioned in the petition under Section 21 has totally disappeared. [Paras 4 and 8] [723-D, E; 724-C, D] I- KedarNathAgrawal (dead) andAnr. v. DhanrajiDevi (dead) by Lrs. and Anr. , [2004] 8 SCC 76; Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, r (1981] 3 SCC 103 and MM Quasim v. Manohar LalSharma andOrs. , ~ (1981] 3 sec 36, relied on. ~ . I Tulsidas KilachandandOrs. v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, AIR ·r (1961) SC 1023, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2371 of 2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 9. 10. 2006 ofthe High Court ofU1. taranchal at Nainital in W. P. No. 337/2004 (MIS). Dinesh Dwivedi, P. N. Gupta for the Appellants. ~ M. N. Krishnamani, S. C. Maheshwari, J. Quddisi, Vipul . , Mal1eshwari, M. P. S.

Tomer and Sandhya Goswami for the Respondents. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 09. l0. 2006 passed by the Uttaranchal High Court in Writ Petition No. 337 of 2004 (M/S). Heard learned counsel for the .... J..... parties and perused the records. 2. The appellants before us are the tenants ofthe premises in dispute while the respondents are the landlords. The landlady filed the petition J I PRABHAARORA V. :! lRUMOHINIANAND 723 [MARKANDEYKATJU,J. ] i. fudet 5ection 2l(1)(a) ofthe U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation ofLetting, Re~t and EvldiBh) Act, 1972. The grounds mentioned in the release application ofthe landlady was that she is a retired teacher getting only pension ofRs. 538/~ per ttionth which is insufficient for her needs. Hence to augment her income she wants to rtift tuition/coaching classes in the ). _ premise§ Jtt QHSstitm.

The said petition was rejected by the Prescribed Authority, but in appeal the appellate authority (ADJ Dehradun) by his ,.. J. judgment dated 16. 03. 2004 reversed the order of the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application. The said judgment dated 16:6. 12004 has been upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 09. i 0. 2006. Hence this appeal. 3. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the appeaJ before the appellate authority a Trust was created in respect of the property in question vide trust deed dated 04. 08. 2003 (copy ofwhich is annexed as Annexure P-8 to this appeal). y 4. Lean1ed counsel for the appellants, Sim Dinesh Dwivedi, submitted that in view ofthe aforesaid trust deed dated 04. 08. 2003 the very purpose for which eviction was sought ofthe tenants through the release application , has disappeared. We are in agreement with this submission.

TI1e trust deed nowhere mentions that any income of the Trust will be given to the petitioner who filed the release application. In fact, Section 51 ofthe Trust Act debars a trustee from using the trust property for his own profit. 5. In Kedar Nath Agrawal (dead) & Anr. v. Dhanraji Devi (dead) -; by Lrs. & Anr. , [2004] 8 SCC 76 this Court held that the court has to consider the changed circumstances during the pendency ofthe litigation. This decision relied on the earlier decision ofthis Court in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, [1981] 3 SCC 103: AIR (1981) SC 1711 in which it was observed that where possession is sought for personal requirement, the said requirement must not only exist on the date ofthe filing ofthe .. _ petition but must also subsist till the final decree for an order for eviction ,,. is made. If, in the meantime, events crop up which would show that the landlord's requirement no longer subsists then the action must fail. 6. In Tulsidas Kilachand & Ors. v.

Commissioner ofIncome Tax, AIR (1961) SC I023 it was held that on creation of a Trust the property --\ y passes to the trustees. Hence, in our opinion, rent is now to be paid to the trustees who will collect it on behalfofthe Trust. 7. In MM Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors. , [1981] 3 SCC 36 this Court held that on transfer ofproperty to a person who is not a party to the proceedings the suit for eviction will fail. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri M. N. Krishnamani, A submitted that the petition under Section 21 for eviction was filed on the 'ground that the petitioner wanted to do charitable work, and after creation ofthe Trust also the purpose remains the sani. e. We do not agree. In the petition under Section 21 it is stated iri pai-agraph nos. 3 - 7 ofthe petition that the petitioner has a monthly pension ofRs. 538/- only and she wants to augment her income as it is difficult for her to survive on the meager pension.

Hence she wants to open a tutorial centre in the premises in dispute to earn some money. The purpose mentioned in the petition under Section 21 was not for doing charitable work. However, after the execution of the trust deed the premises in dispute now belongs to the -r Trust. The need mentioned in the petition under Section 21 has totally disappeared. ,, 9. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment ofthe High Court dated 09. 10. 2006 and ofth~ appellate authority dated 16. 03. 2006 can not be sustained and are set aside. 10. Appeal is allowed, no order as to costs K. K. T. // Appeal allowed. h- ;. , 't " -'...