AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 1640 ::2000 AIR SCW 1829 ::2000 SCFBRC 328 ::(2000) WLC(SC)CVL 541 ::2000 (2) UJ (SC) 1154 ::(2000) 85 DLT 574 ::2000 (5) SCC 646 ::(2000) 4 Scale 768 ::2001 (1) MadLW 81 ::2000 (2) RenCJ 604 ::(2000) 1 RenCR 516 ::2000 (2) RentLR 160 ::2001 (1) LandLR 242 ::(2000) 40 All LR 213 ::2000 (3) LRI 171 ::(2000) 4 Supreme 627 ::(2000) 54 DRJ 351 ::(2000) 6 JT 498 (SC) ::2000 (7) SRJ 195

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Delhi)

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. S. M. Quadri, S. N. Phukan , JJ

Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) , S.2(i), S.50— "Premises" - Respondent, tenant in occupation of building under separate agreement - Making construction on open suit land adjacent to building - Suit for demolition by landlord - Compromise - Open plot was let out to respondent - Said open plot does not fall within term "premises" under S. 2(1)(i) - Suit for eviction of respondent from open plot - Not barred by S. 50 - Further said suit plot cannot be treated as part of building as it was let out separately. When, in any case, the question arises whether an open plot of land or a plot of land with structures thereon, was let out, the Court has to determine the same on the facts of that case. In deciding this question, it will be useful to bear in mind that if the plot with structure was let out it will fall within the meaning of the term 'premises' but if open plot without any structure was let out then it does not fall within the meaning of the term 'premises'. It is immaterial whether the tenant raised structures before the creation of the tenancy or after he was let in as a tenant. In either case, the tenant alone will have the proprietary rights in the structure and not the landlord. In the instant case, the structure (latrine) was raised by the respondent unauthorisedly which was the subject-matter of the earlier suit wherein mandatory injunction for ....