Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Indian Case Summary

Lal Chand (Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors vs Radha Kishan on 17 December, 1976 – Case Summary

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In the case of Lal Chand (Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors vs Radha Kishan on 17 December, 1976, the Supreme Court of India was confronted with a complex legal dispute involving property rights, tenancy laws, and the application of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. The case was presided over by Justice Y.V. Chandrachud.

Facts of the Case

The respondent, Radha Kishan, owned a house in Delhi, which he had rented out to Lal Chand. The house consisted of five rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the second floor. Radha Kishan filed a suit in 1958 for evicting Lal Chand and four others, alleging that Lal Chand had sublet the premises to them. The eviction was sought on the grounds of personal requirement, reconstruction, and arrears of rent. The proceedings concluded with the High Court granting a decree of eviction in respect of all seven rooms in favor of Radha Kishan.

Since the property was situated in a slum area, Radha Kishan filed an application under section 19(2) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, for permission to execute the decree for possession. The competent authority permitted the execution of the decree only in respect of the two rooms on the second floor, expressly refusing permission for the five rooms on the ground floor.

Issues Raised

The main issues raised in the case were whether a suit for eviction against a tenant in a slum area could be maintained without prior permission from the authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, and whether a decree of eviction could be executed without such permission. The interpretation of the term ‘tenant’ under the Slum Clearance Act and the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was also a significant point of contention.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The court observed that the respondent had not obtained permission for instituting the present suit for obtaining a decree for eviction, and therefore, the suit was incompetent. The court also held that the suit was barred by section 37A of the Slum Clearance Act, which takes away the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in respect of any matter which the competent authority is empowered to decide.

The court further held that the present suit filed by the respondent was also barred by a principle analogous to res judicata. The respondent, after obtaining a decree for eviction against Lal Chand and his alleged sub-tenants, applied for permission of the competent authority to execute the decree. Permission was granted to him to execute the decree in respect of the two rooms on the second floor only, and in pursuance of that permission, he obtained possession of these two rooms. By the present suit, the respondent was once again asking for the relief which was included in the larger relief sought by him in the application filed under the Slum Clearance Act and which was expressly denied to him.

The court also noted that the principle of res judicata is conceived in the larger public interest, which requires that all litigation must, sooner than later, come to an end. The principle is also founded on equity, justice, and good conscience, which require that a party which has once succeeded on an issue should not be permitted to be harassed by a multiplicity of proceedings involving the determination of the same issue.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of Lal Chand and others, stating that the suit brought by Radha Kishan was not maintainable due to the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act and the principle of res judicata.