{"id":27274,"date":"1984-03-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-03-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984"},"modified":"2017-06-22T16:25:48","modified_gmt":"2017-06-22T10:55:48","slug":"smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And … on 27 March, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And … on 27 March, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 1376, \t\t 1984 SCR (3) 315<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSMT. BIMLA DEVI ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/03\/1984\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\nMISRA RANGNATH\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR 1376\t\t  1984 SCR  (3) 315\n 1984 SCC  (2) 582\t  1984 SCALE  (1)578\n\n\nACT:\n     Uttar Pradesh  Urban Buildings  (Regulation of Letting,\nRent and  Eviction) Act. 1972, Scope of - Words and Phrases-\nImport, interpretation\tand meaning of the word \"occupation\"\noccurring in Explanation (IV) to section 22(1)(b)- The words\nused are  not a\t rule of  evidence-A tenant  has no right to\nquestion the  mode in  which the Landlord may choose to live\nin.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In both Civil Appeal No.41 of 1979 and Civil Appeal No.\n379 of\t1980, the  appellants are  the\tunsuccessful  house-\nowners to  get an  eviction order against their tenants from\nthe portions  of their\trespective houses  from the  court's\nbelow. In  the first  case, the\t questions arose whether the\nportion of the premises sought to be vacated by the landlady\nwas one\t single unit  or two  separate units.  In the second\ncase, the  point involved was whether the word \" occupation\"\nincluded actual\t residence of  the landlord  even though the\nmay not have been residing there.\n     Allowing the appeals, by special leave, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: (C.A. No. 41\/1979)\n     In\t view  of  the\tTrial  Court's\tfinding\t basing\t its\ndecision on the report of the Commissioner appointed for the\npurpose, that  the entire  building constituted\t one  single\nunit, the  appellant being in occupation of a portion of the\nsame, she  is entitled\tto get\trelease of the other portion\noccupied by the tenant. [323F-G]\n     In C.A. No. 379\/1980.\n     1:1. The  case of\tthe appellant  is clearly covered by\nthe provisions\tof Explanation\t(iv) to\t section 21(1)(b) of\nthe Uttar  Pradesh Urban  Buildings (Regulation\t of Letting,\nRent and Eviction), Act 1972. [323C]\n     1:2. The  policy of  the law  was to give a facility to\nthe landlord so to secure the entire building where he is in\noccupation of  a part  of the  same and\t wants to occupy the\nwhole house. [321D]\n316\n     1:3. In  Babu Singh  Chauhan v.  Rajkumari Jain  & Ors.<\/a>\n[1982] 3 S.C.R. 114, the Supreme Court, while construing the\nword \"occupation\"  occurring in section 21(1)(b) of the 1972\nAct,  used   the  word\t \"possession\",\ttreating   the\tword\n\"possession\" as\t synonym of  \"occupation\" and since the word\n\"possession\" or\t \"occupation\" may  take various\t forms\theld\nthat even  keeping the house-hold effects by the owner is an\nact of occupation.\n[319H, 320D-G]\n     Therefore, even  if a  landlord is\t serving outside  or\nliving with  his near  relations but  makes casual visits to\nhis house  and thus retains control of\tover the entire area\nor a  portion of  the property, he would in law be deemed to\nbe in  occupation of the same. To accept the contention that\nExplanation IV\trequired actual\t physical occupation  by the\nlandlord of  the portion  retained by  him would destory the\nvery  concept\tof  constructive  or  actual  possession  or\noccupation. [320H; 321A-B]\n     2:1. All  the Rent\t Control Acts  try  to\tdeprive\t and\ncurtail the  right of  an owner of his property and have put\nconstraints  and   restraints  on   his\t right\t by   giving\nsubstantial protection\tto the\ttenants in  public interest,\notherwise if  Rent Acts\t were to  be abolished\tor were\t not\nthere, the  landlord could  get a  tenant evicted  only by a\nnotice after  expiry of\t the tenancy  in accordance with the\nprovisions of the Transfer of Property Act.[321E-F]\n     2:2. The  words  \"shall  be  conclusive  to  prove\"  in\nExplanation (iv)  clearly indicate  that it is a substantive\nright which  belongs to\t the landlord  and  which  has\tbeen\naffirmed and  recognised if  a part  of an  accommodation is\nretained by  the landlord.  The words  \"conclusive to  prove\nthat the  building is  bona fide  required by  the landlord\"\ndoes not constitute a rule of evidence. [321F-G]\n     2:3. The  right to\t ejectment  having  accrued  to\t the\nappellant under\t Explanation (iv)  was a  vested right as an\nowner and could not be affected by the 1976 amendment unless\nit was\tcouched in  a language which was either expressly or\nby   necessary\t  intendment   meant\tto   be\t   operative\nretrospectively. Explanation  (iv) deals  not merely  with a\nparticular procedure  but with the substantive rights of the\nparties. The  said Explanation has asserted and affirmed the\nsubstantive right of a landlord to get portion of a building\nvacated where  he is  in occupation  of a part of it. Such a\nsubstantive  right   cannot  be\t  taken\t away  merely  by  a\nprocedural amendment  nor does the language of the amendment\nintroduced the\t1976. Act  envisage or\tcontemplate  such  a\nposition. Section  14 of  the 1976  Act merely\trecites that\nExplanation (ii)  and (iv)  of s.21(1)(b)  shall be omitted.\nThere is  nothing to  show that\t the legislature intended to\ngive any retrospective effect to the deletion of Explanation\n(iv). [321H, 322A-D]\n     3. The  argument that  merely because  the landlord was\nliving with  his son  or his  relation after retirement and,\ntherefore, was\tnot in\toccupation of  the house  cannot  be\naccepted because it was not for the tenant to dictate to the\nlandlord as  to how he should use his own premises. A tenant\nto has\tgot no\tright nor any business to interfere with the\nmode or\t manner in  which a  landlord may  choose to use his\nproperty or live therein. [323 A-B]\n317\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
\n\t\t      No. 41 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
     (From the Judgment and Order dated 23rd August, 1978 of
\nAllahabad High Court in Writ Petition No, 1483 of 78)
\n\t\t\t    WITH
\n     Civil Appeal No. 379 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  order dated 28th March, 1979 of
\nthe Allahabad High Court in civil Misc-Writ No. 1287 of 1977
\n     G.L. Saghi, V.A. Bobde & H.K. Puri for the appellant in
\nC.A. No. 41\/79.\n<\/p>\n
     R.K. Jain for the appellant in C.A. No. 379\/80.
\n     K.P. Gupta for the respondents in C.A. No. 41\/79.
\n     Shanti Bhushan  and R.B. Mehrotra for the respondent in
\nC.A. No. 379\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FAZAL ALI\tJ. We  would first  take up Civil appeal No.
\n379 of\t1980 which  is directed against an Order dated March
\n28, 1979  passed by  the Allahabad High Court dismissing the
\nwrit petition  of the  appellant and arises in the following
\ncircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  owns a  house bearing  No.\t113,  Amroha
\nGate, Fruit  Market, Moradabad, in a portion of which he had
\ninducted respondent  No.3 (Vishwa  Nath Kapoor)\t as a tenant
\nwhile  retaining   some\t portion   for\thimself,   when\t  he
\n(appellant) was\t serving as  a Judicial Officer in the State
\nof Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1968, the appellant retired as
\na District  Judge as  a result of which he had to vacate his
\nofficial residence,  which necessitated the present eviction
\nproceedings against  respondent No.3.  The  application\t for
\neviction was  filed on\t2.1.1973 under\ts.21(1) (b)  of\t the
\nUttar Pradesh  Urban Buildings\t(Regulation of Letting, Rent
\nand Eviction)  Act, 1972  (hereinafter referred\t to  as\t the
\n‘1972 Act’)  in which  the appellant prayed that the portion
\noccupied by respondent No.3 may be released on the ground of
\npersonal requirement as after retirement he wanted to occupy
\nthe entire  house. The appellant further claimed that due to
\nshortage of  accommodation he  had  to\tstay  with  his\t son
\nelsewhere. The\teviction proceedings  were contested  by the
\nrespondent on the following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  that since  the appellant  was already living with
\n\t  his  son   there  was\t no  particular\t urgency  or
\n\t  personal necessity  for him  to occupy  the rented
\n\t  portion also,
\n318<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  that the appellant had in his occupation a part of
\n\t  the house  which was\tretained by  him even  after
\n\t  inducting him\t (respondent) as  a tenant and which
\n\t  was sufficient for his needs, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  that the  appellant after  keeping  his  household
\n\t  effects in  the portion retained by him had locked
\n\t  up the  same and  was, therefore,  not  in  actual
\n\t  occupation of the house as required by Explanation\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iv) to s. 21 (1) (b).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  same token,  it was submitted as a point of law
\nthat the essential ingredient of Explanation (iv) to s.21(1)\n<\/p>\n
(b) was\t that the  building must  have been in occupation of
\nthe landlord for residential purposes which alone would be a
\nconclusive  proof   of\tpersonal   necessity.  It  was\talso
\ncontended as  a question  of fact  that\t as  the  appellant-
\nlandlord was  not in  actual  occupation  of  the  premises,
\nExplanation (iv) would not be attracted in the instant case.
\nTo buttress this argument it was submitted that the landlord
\nnever occupied\tor possessed  the premises but had locked up
\nthe same  and was  residing  elsewhere.\t This  plea  of\t the
\nrespondent-tenant did  not find\t favour with  the Prescribed
\nAuthority or the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The dominant question, therefore, turns upon the import
\nand interpretation  of\tExplanation  (iv)  to  s.21(1)\t(b),
\nparticularly the nature and meaning of the word ‘occupation’
\nas used\t in  Explanation  (iv).\t The  crux  of\tthe  matter,
\ntherefore, was\tas  to\twhether\t or  not  the  case  of\t the
\nappellant  squarely   fell  within   the  four\t corners  of
\nExplanation (iv)  and whether the word ‘occupation’ included
\nactual residence of the landlord even though he may not have
\nbeen  residing\tthere.\tWe  might  mention  that  while\t the
\neviction proceedings  were  pending  before  the  Prescribed
\nAuthority the 1972 Act was amended by U.P. Act No.28 of 1976
\n(for short  to be  referred to as the ‘1976 Act’) which came
\ninto force  with effect from 5th July 1976 and which deleted
\nExplanation  (iv).  The\t Prescribed  Authority,\t relying  on
\nExplanation (iv),  held that  the need\tof the\tlandlord was
\nfully made  out and  accordingly passed an order of eviction
\nagainst\t the   tenant,\tpartly\treleasing  some\t portion  in
\nappellant’s favour.  The  appellant  then  filed  an  appeal
\nbefore the  District Judge  which was heard by an Additional
\nDistrict Judge\twho accepted  the offer\t of the\t tenant\t and
\nmodified the  Order of\tthe Prescribed\tAuthority by further
\nreleasing some\tother portion  in his  favour. The appellant
\nthen filed a writ
\n319<\/span>
\npetition before\t the High Court which upheld the decision of
\nthe District Judge and dismissed the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
     Before we approach the question of law raised before us
\nit may\tbe necessary  to give  a  detailed  picture  of\t the
\nposition of  the premises  retained by the landlord and that
\nrented out to the tenant. The house in question is a double-
\nstoreyed one  containing some  rooms on\t the first floor and
\nsome on the ground floor which were retained by the landlord
\nat the time of the lease and the rest of the portion was let
\nout to the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in
\nview of\t the requirements  of the landlord he had a real and
\nbona fide need for occupying the entire house and therefore,
\nthe entire  portion occupied  by the tenant should have been
\nreleased in  favour of\tthe  appellant.\t This  argument\t was
\ncountered by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, counsel for the respondent,
\nwho put forward the following legal submission:\n<\/p>\n
     In the first place, he contended that Explanation. (iv)
\nwould not  in terms  apply to  the facts of the present case
\nbecause on  the findings  of fact  arrived at  by the courts
\nbelow it  was not  shown that  the appellant  was in  actual
\noccupation of  the portion  retained  by  him,\twhich  is  a
\nprerequisite for the application of Explanation (iv) to s.21
\n(1) (b).  In this  connection, it  was\tsubmitted  that\t the
\nadmitted position  being that the application was previously
\nemployed as  a District\t Judge and  was living elsewhere, he
\ncould not  be deemed  to be  in occupation  of\tthe  portion
\nretained by  him. In  order to\tappreciate this argument, it
\nmay  be\t  necessary  to\t examine  closely  the\tlanguage  of
\nExplanation (iv) which may be extracted thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(iv) the  fact that the building under tenancy is
\n     a part  of a building, the remaining part thereof is in
\n     the  occupation   of  the\t landlord  for\t residential
\n     purposes,\tshall\tbe  conclusive\tto  prove  that\t the
\n     building is bona fide required by the landlord.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The pivotal  argument of the counsel for the respondent
\nturns upon  the interpretation\tof  the\t word  ‘occupation’.
\nThis, however,\tdoes not present any difficulty because in a
\nrecent decision\t in  the  case\tof  Babu  Singh\t Chauhan  v.
\nRajkumari Jain & Ors.<\/a>(1) this Court while
\n320<\/span>
\nconstruing a  similar term  in\tthe  same  Act\tobserved  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We have  gone through  the judgment\tof the\tHigh
\n     Court in  the light of the arguments of the parties and
\n     we are  inclined to  agree with  the view\ttaken by the
\n     High Court\t that the  mere fact  that the\tlady did not
\n     actually reside  in the  premises which were locked and
\n     contained her household effects, it cannot be said that
\n     she was not in possession of the premises so as to make
\n     s. 17 (2) inapplicable. Possession by a landlord of his
\n     property may  assume various  forms. A  landlord may be
\n     serving outside  while retaining  his possession over a
\n     property or a part of the property by either leaving it
\n     in-charge of  a servant  or by  putting  his  household
\n     effects or\t things locked\tup in  the premises. Such an
\n     occupation also  would be\tfull and complete possession
\n     in the eye of law.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  true that  the court  used the word ‘possession’
\nbut in\tExplanation (iv)  to s.21(1)  (b) the  word used  is
\n‘occupation’ and not ‘possession’ but this Court treated the
\nword ‘possession’  as being  a synonym\tof ‘occupation’.  In
\nWebster’s  Third   New\tInternational  Dictionary  the\tword
\n‘occupation’ has been defined at page 1560 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Occupation-to take possession of, occupy, employ”
\n     The  Black’s   Law\t Dictionary   (5th   Edn.)   defines
\n‘occupation’ at page 82 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “occupation-possession; control; tenure; use.”
\n     In\t Corpus\t  Juris\t Secundum   (vol.67)  at   page\t  74
\n‘occupation’ has been mentioned thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The word  may be employed as referring to the act
\n     or process\t of occupying,\tthe state of being occupied,
\n     occupancy, or tenure.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This Court\t in the\t observations, extracted  above, has
\nclearly pointed\t out that  ‘possession’ or  ‘occupation’ may
\ntake various  forms and\t it was\t expressly  held  that\teven
\nkeeping the  household effects\tby the\towner is  an act  of
\noccupation.\n<\/p>\n
     It is,  therefore, manifestly  clear  that\t even  if  a
\nlandlord  is   serving\toutside\t or  living  with  his\tnear
\nrelations but makes casual
\n321<\/span>
\nvisits to his house and thus retains control over the entire
\nor a  portion of  the property, he would in law be deemed to
\nbe in  occupation of  the same.\t Therefore, we are unable to
\naccept the argument of Mr. Shanti Bhushan that the essential
\ningredient of  Explanation (iv) has not been made out, there
\nbeing no  actual physical  occupation by the landlord of the
\nportion retained  by him.  Indeed, if the broad argument put
\nforward by  the counsel\t is to\tbe accepted  then that would
\ndestroy\t the   very  concept   of  constructive\t  or  actual
\npossession or  occupation. For, instance, even if a house is
\nnot let out to anybody but is locked up, can it be said that
\nthe owner who is not living there but has kept his household
\neffects, would\tnot be\tdeemed to  be in  occupation of\t the
\nsame? The answer must necessarily be in the negative.\n<\/p>\n
     It seems to us that the policy of the law was to give a
\nfacility to the landlord so as to secure the entire building
\nwhere he is in occupation of a part of the same and wants to
\noccupy the whole house.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Shanti\t Bhushan then  argued that  Explanation (iv)
\ndoes not  confer any  substantive right\t but merely raises a
\npresumption that if a landlord is in occupation of a part of
\nthe premises,  his need\t would be deemed to be bona fide. We
\nare, however  unable to\t agree with  this argument.  We must
\nremember that  all the\tRent Control Acts try to deprive and
\ncurtail the legal right of an owner to his property and have
\nput constraints\t and  restraints  on  his  right  by  giving
\nsubstantial protection\tto the\ttenants in  public interest,
\notherwise if  the Rent Acts were to be abolished or were not
\nthere, the  landlord could  get a  tenant evicted  only by a
\nnotice after  expiry of\t the tenancy  in accordance with the
\nprovisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The words “shall
\nbe conclusive to prove” in Explanation (iv) clearly indicate
\nthat it is a substantive right which belongs to the landlord
\nand which  has been  affirmed and recognised if a part of an
\naccommodation is  retained by the landlord. We are unable to
\nagree with  Mr. Shanti Bhushan that the words “conclusive to
\nprove that  the\t building  is  bona  fide  required  by\t the
\nlandlord” constitute  a rule  of  evidence.  In\t fact,\tthis
\nargument was  put forward  before  us  because\tthe  learned
\ncounsel wanted\tto submit that in view of the 1976 Amendment
\nAct, deleting  Explanation (iv)\t to s.21(1)  (b) of the 1972
\nAct, it\t would be  deemed to  be retrospective and therefore
\nthe relief  given by  Explanation (iv)\twould disappear.  We
\ncannot agree with this somewhat far-fetched submis-\n<\/p>\n
322<\/span><\/p>\n
sion because  Explanation  (iv)\t deals\tnot  merely  with  a
\nparticular procedure  but with the substantive rights of the
\nparties. The  said Explanation has asserted and affirmed the
\nsubstantive right  of a\t landlord to  get  a  portion  of  a
\nbuilding vacated  where he is in occupation of a part of it.
\nSuch a\tsubstantive right  cannot be  taken away merely by a
\nprocedural amendment  nor does the language of the amendment
\nintroduced by  the 1976\t Act envisage  or contemplate such a
\nposition. Section  14 of  the 1976  Act merely\trecites that
\nExplanations (ii)  and (iv) of s.21(1) (b) shall be omitted.
\nThere is  nothing to  show that\t the legislature intended to
\ngive any retrospective effect to the deletion of Explanation\n<\/p>\n
(iv).\n<\/p>\n
     In\t these\t circumstances,\t therefore,   the  right  to
\nejectment having  accrued to the appellant under Explanation\n<\/p>\n
(iv) was  a vested  right as  an  owner\t and  could  not  be
\naffected by  the 1976  amendment unless\t it was couched in a
\nlanguage  which\t  was  either\texpressly  or  by  necessary
\nintendment meant to be operative retrospectively.\n<\/p>\n
     Lastly, it\t was argued  by Mr.  Shanti Bhushan that the
\nfact remains  that the appellant, even after retirement, was
\nnot in\tactual possession of the portion retained by him and
\nwas living  with his son or other relations most of the time
\nexception casual  visits  to  the  premises  in\t dispute.  A
\nfurther argument  was raised  in an additional Note supplied
\nby the\tcounsel for  the respondent that as the bathroom and
\nthe latrine  were in  occupation of the tenant, the landlord
\ncould not  possibly have  occupied the\tpremises retained by
\nhim and\t could not  have lived there in the absence of these
\nfacilities. The\t High Court rightly rejected these arguments
\nby observing thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The last  argument  was  that  the  view  of\t the
\n     Prescribed Authority  that since the petitioner did not
\n     occupy the\t portion retained  by him and lived with his
\n     son and,  therefore, his  need was not bona fide has no
\n     merits in as much as the petitioner did not have either
\n     a latrine\tor a bathroom and that he could not possibly
\n     occupy the\t house in  the position in which it had been
\n     retained. There  may be  some truth  in the  submission
\n     made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, as
\n     neither the  Prescribed  Authority\t nor  the  Appellate
\n     Authority based  their judgment  on this feature of the
\n     case and  they examined  the merits of the claim of the
\n     respective parties,  it is\t not possible  to  interfere
\n     with the judgments of the courts below.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
323<\/span><\/p>\n
     An attempt\t was made  by  the  parties  to\t come  to  a
\nsettlement  but,  unfortunately,  the  efforts\tfailed.\t The
\nargument of  Mr. Shanti\t Bhushan  that\tmerely\tbecause\t the
\nlandlord was  living with  his son  or\this  relation  after
\nretirement and,\t therefore, was\t not in\t occupation  of\t the
\nhouse cannot  be accepted  because it was not for the tenant
\nto dictate  to the  landlord as to how he should use his own
\npremises. A  tenant has\t got no\t right nor  any business  to
\ninterfere with\tthe mode  or manner  in which a landlord may
\nchoose to use his property or live therein.\n<\/p>\n
     In these  circumstances, therefore,  we  are  satisfied
\nthat the  case of  the appellant  is clearly  covered by the
\nprovisions of  Explanation (iv)\t to s.21(1) (b) and a decree
\nfor release  of the  entire premises should have been passed
\nby the District Judge against the respondent. We, therefore,
\nallow this appeal, set aside the judgments of all the courts
\nbelow and order release of the entire premises in possession
\nof the\trespondent to  the appellant. Time is granted to the
\nrespondent to vacate the premises on or before 31st December
\n1984, subject to the usual undertaking to be given and filed
\nby him\tin the\tCourt within  four weeks from today, failing
\nwhich the  grant of time shall stand revoked without further
\nreference to  the Bench\t and the appellant would be entitled
\nto be put in possession forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1979
\n     This appeal was heard alongwith civil appeal No. 379 of
\n1980 which  we have  decided by our judgment. The main point
\ninvolved in this appeal was as to whether the portion of the
\npremises sought to be vacated by the landlady was one single
\nunit or\t two separate  units. This Court remanded the matter
\nto the\ttrial court  for examining  this point and the trial
\ncourt has  returned a  finding, basing\tits decision  on the
\nreport of  the Commissioner  appointed for the Purpose, that
\nthe entire building constituted one single unit.\n<\/p>\n
     It is,  therefore, manifest that if the entire building
\nwas one\t unit and  the appellant  being in  occupation of  a
\nportion of  the same,  she is entitled to get release of the
\nother portion  also. In view of our decision in civil appeal
\nNo. 379\t of 1980, the appeal is allowed and we order release
\nof the\tentire portion\tin favour  of the appellant. Time is
\ngranted to  the respondent  to vacate  the  premises  on  or
\nbefore 31st  October 1984,  subject to the usual undertaking
\nbeing given  and filed within four weeks from today, failing
\nwhich the grant of time
\n324<\/span>
\nshall stand  revoked without further reference to the Bench.
\nThere will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
     Let a  certified copy of this judgment be placed on the
\nfile of civil appeal No.41 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n325<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And … on 27 March, 1984 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 1376, 1984 SCR (3) 315 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: SMT. BIMLA DEVI ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: MST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/03\/1984 BENCH: FAZALALI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And ... on 27 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And ... on 27 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1984-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-22T10:55:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And … on 27 March, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-22T10:55:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984\"},\"wordCount\":2809,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984\",\"name\":\"Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And ... on 27 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-22T10:55:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And … on 27 March, 1984\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And ... on 27 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And ... on 27 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-22T10:55:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And … on 27 March, 1984","datePublished":"1984-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-22T10:55:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984"},"wordCount":2809,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984","name":"Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And ... on 27 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-22T10:55:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-devi-etc-vs-mst-additional-district-judge-and-on-27-march-1984#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Bimla Devi Etc vs Mst Additional District Judge And … on 27 March, 1984"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27274","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}