TMI Blog1965 (8) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partition, the present premises fell to the share of respondent No. 1. The appellant V. N. Sarin had been inducted into the premises as a tenant by respondent No. 2 before partition at a monthly rental of ₹ 80. After respondent No. 1 got this property by partition, he applied to the Rent Controller for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for his own residence and that of his wife and children who are dependent on him. To this application, he impleaded the appellant and respondent No. 2. The appellant contested the claim of respondent No. 1 of three grounds. He urged that respondent No. 1 was not his landlord inasmuch as he was not aware of the partition and did not know what it contained. He also urged that even if respondent No. 1 was his landlord, he did not require the premises bona fide; and so, the requirements of s. 14(1)(e) of the Act were not satisfied. The last contention raised by him was that if respondent No. 1 got the property in suit by partition, in law it meant that he had acquired the premises by transfer within the meaning of s. 14 (6) of the Act and the provisions of the said section make the present suit inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view taken by the High Court about the construction of s. 14(6) is erroneous in law. That is how the only point which arises for our decision is whether the partition of the coparcenary property among the coparceners could be said to be an acquisition by transfer under s. 14(6) of the Act. The Act was passed in 1958 to provide, inter alia, for the control of rents and evictions in certain areas in the Union Territory of Delhi. This Act conforms to the usual pattern adopted by rent control legislation in this country. Section 2(e) defines a landlord as meaning a person who, for the time being, is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant. It has been found by all the courts below that respondent No. 1 is a landlord of the premises and this position has not been and cannot be disputed in the appeal before us. Section 14 (1) of the Act provides for the protection of tenants against eviction. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to make out a case for evicting his tenant under s. 14 (1) (e), it was not unlikely that he may think of transferring the premises to a purchaser who would be able to make out such a case on his own behalf; and the legislature thought that if such a course was allowed to he adopted, it would defeat the purpose of s. 14(1). In other words, where the right to evict a tenant could not be claimed by a landlord under s. 14 (1) (e), the legislature thought that the landlord should not be permitted to create such a right by adopting the device of transferring the premises to a purchaser who may be able to Prove his own individual case under s. 14 (1) (e). It is possible that this provision may, in some cases, work hardship, because if a transfer is made by a landlord who could have proved his case under s. 14 ( 1 ) (e), the transferee would be preluded from making a claim for the eviction of the tenant within five years even. though he, in his turn, would also have proved his case under s. 14 (1) (e). Apparently, the legislature thought that the possible mischief which may be caused to the tenants by transfers made by landlords to circumvent the provisions of s. 14 (1) (e) required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enables him to obtain what is his own in a definite and specific form for purposes of disposition independent of the wishes of his former cosharers . Mr. Purshottam, however, strongly relies on the fact that there is preponderance of judicial authority in favour of the view that a partition is a transfer for the purpose of s. 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. It will be recalled that the decision of the question as to whether a partition under Hindu Law is a transfer within the meaning of s. 53, naturally depends upon the definition of the word transfer prescribed by s. 5 of the said Act. Section 5 provides that in the following sections, transfer of property means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future. to one or more other living persons, or to himself, or to (1) 43 I.A. 151 at p. 161. himself and one or more other living persons. It must be conceded that in a number of cases, the High Courts in India have held that partition amounts to a transfer within the meaning of s. 53, vide, for instance, Soniram Raghushet Others v. Dwarkabai Shridharshet Another(A.I.R. 1951 Bom. 94), and the cases cited therein. On the other hand, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e satisfied that it would be unreasonable to hold that allotment of one parcel of property belonging to an undivided Hindu family to an individual coparcener as a result of partition is an acquisition of the said property by transfer by the said coparcener within the meaning of s. 14(6). In our opinion, the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that s. 14 (6) did not create a bar against the institution of the application by respondent No. 1 for evicting the appellant. In this connection, we may refer to a recent decision of this Court in the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel.(1965 2 S.C.R. 100) In that case, the respondent Keshavlal had thrown all himself-acquired property into the common hotchpotch of the Hindu undivided family which consisted of himself, his wife, a major son and a minor son. Thereafter, an oral partition took place between the members of the said family and properties were transferred in accordance with it in the names of the several members. The question which arose for the decision of this Court was whether there was an indirect transfer of the properties allotted to the wife and minor son in the partition within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
