Rehman Jeo Wangnoo v. Ram Chand and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R. Krishna Iyer
P. K. Goswami
D. Tulzapurkar
Judgment Date: 1977-12-07
Court Decision / Holding: S.R. Appeal allowed and case remanded.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed and case remanded.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rehman Jeo Wangnoo

Respondents

Ram Chand and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Niren De
• Altaf Ahmed

Counsels for Respondents

• Hardyal Hardy
• R. P. Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment concerns eviction under the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 and the interpretation of the second proviso to the Explanation to Section 11(1)(h). The appellant, Rehman Jeo Wangnoo, contends that the imperatives of the proviso were not properly considered by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, which found it difficult to order eviction from only part of the premises. The Supreme Court reverses, holding that the proviso requires the court to determine, after full evidence, whether partial eviction would meet the landlord's reasonable requirements or whether eviction of the entire holding is necessary. Crucially, the absence of a specific pleading on this issue does not bar the court from applying the statute's mandate. The Court remands the matter to the first appellate court with directions to receive evidence on this limited issue and to decide, within two months, whether eviction should be partial or total. If the evidence shows that complete eviction is warranted, the present order stands; if not, an order for partial eviction consistent with the proviso should be passed. The judgment also overrules a prior J&K law decision on this point, namely R. S. Madan v. G. M. Sadiq (1971) J&K Law Reports 260.

Provisions of Law Cited

Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 – Section 11(1)(h) (Second Proviso to Explanation)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

null

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued that the proviso to Explanation to s. 11(1)(h) requires the court to explore whether partial eviction would meet the landlord's reasonable requirements, and that absence of a specific pleading should not prevent this inquiry. The trial court and first appellate court did not properly apply the proviso or permit full evidence on this issue. The High Court erred in assuming concurrent findings and the Supreme Court should remand so evidence can be led on this single question, allowing eviction to be partial if justified.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly stated in the provided excerpt.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
R. S. Madan v. G. M. Sadiq	1971, J&K Law Reports 260	Overruled	This decision is overruled by the present judgment which mandates consideration of the proviso to Section 11(1)(h) and remand for evidence on partial vs. full eviction.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

380 A REHMAN JEO WANGNOO _v._ RAM CHAND AND ORS. _December_ 7, 1977 ## B rv. R. KRISHNA IYER, P. K. GOSWAMI AND v. D. TULZAPURKAR JJ.] _Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act,_ 1966, S. 11(1)(11) _Second Proviso to Explanation, Interpretation_ _of-Whether_ _mandatory for the_ _courts to comply even in the absence of specific pleading._ ## c D E Under the second proviso to the Explanation to S. ll(!)(h) of J & K Hou1es and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966 the court before evicting the tenant from part only of the premises, must satisfy itself after taking the entire evidence to fulfil the reasonable requirement of the landlord. The High Court in second appeal held that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have taken this point into consideration and found that it would not be feasible to order the eviction of the appellant only from a portion of the suit premises and therefore dismissed the appeal. Granting the special leave, allowing it and remanding the matter, the court. HELD : The second proviso to the Explanations to S. 11 (I )(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 mandates the court to consider whether partial eviction as contemplated therein should be ordered or the entire holding should· be directed to be evicted. This aspect, therefore requires judicial exploration after giving opportunity to both sides to - lead evidence in this behalf. The court must proceed on the footing that the absence of a specific pleading under the said proviso does not stand in the way of the obligation of the court to act in compliance with the mandate of the statute. [381 A·B-D] _R._ S. _Madan_ v. _G._ _M. Sadiq,_ 1971, J & K Law reports 260; over-ruled. _Rehman Jeo Wangnoo_ v. _Ram_ _Chand_ _&_ _Ors._ Civil Second Appeal No. 46 of 1975, J & K dated 30-9-1975 reversed. F CIVIi. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2954 of 1977. Appeal by special leave from the ·Judgment and Order dated 1-11-1976 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Civil Second Appeal No. 46/75. _Niren De_ and _Altaf Ahmed_ for the Petitioner. _Hardyal Hardy_ and _R. P._ _Sharma_ for the Respondents. ORDER Delay condoned and special leave granted on a point raised by the appellant under the proviso to the Explanation to s. 11 ( 1) (h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (for H short, the Act) . The only ground which we consider tenable and which has been urged by the appellant before us turns on the failure of the courts _ot_ ## . \ REHMAN JEO _v._ RAM CHAND _(Knshna Iyer,_ J.) 381 fact in recording a finding as contemplated in the proviso to the Expla- A nation to s. 11(1.) (h) of the Act. Obviously an error has been committed by the Hi&JI Court in thinking that there is a concurrent finding of fact under the proviso aforesaid. The trial court and the first appellate court have really not considered this question on the merits; indeed evidence itself has not been taken on the score that there has been no specific plea in that behalf. We are satisfied that the proviso aforesaid mandates the court to consider whether partial eviction as contemplated B therein. should be ordered or the entire _holding should be directed to be evicted. Tiris aspect, therefore, iequfres judicial exploration after giving 0pportunity to both sides to lead. evidence in this behalf. We direct the first appellate court to go into the quest.ion as to whether the reasonable requirement of the landlord may be substantially # sf1.(isfted by evicting the tenant from a p;ut only of the premises as c cODtemplated in the proviso. If after taking evidence the court is satisfied that the entire house or premises must be vacated to fulfil the reasonable requirement of the landlord, the' present order will stand. If, on the other hand the court finds, as a fact, that partia,J evicti6n will meet the ends of justice as visualised in 1the proviso, an appropriate order will be passed on that footing. The court will take up the case on file pursuant to this order of remand and confine itself to this limited D issue, give opportunity to both to lead evidence on this sole question and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within two months. The court must proceed on the footing that the absence of a specific pleading under the said proviso does not stand in tile way of the obligation of the> court to act in compliance with. the mandate of the statute. There will be no order as to costs in this court. S.R. _Appeal allowed and_ _case remanded._