SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 934

S.N.PHUKAN, V.N.KHARE
Vaneet Jain – Appellant
Versus
Jagjit Singh – Respondent


ORDER

Appellant herein is the landlord of the premises whereas the respondent is the tenant. The appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973 (in short the Act ) for eviction of respondent-tenant on the ground of his bona fide need for the premises. The need set up by the appellant in the said application was that he is un-employed and his elder brother is carrying on business at Balasaur in Orissa and the said business is in the name of his elder brother wherein the appellant has no interest. It was also stated that he was suffering from asthma and as per medical advice coastal area is not fit for his habitation. It was further asserted that the appellant intended to carry on business of Karyana in the premises in dispute and for that purpose he deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000/- in the fixed deposit. The need set up by the landlord was denied by the tenant. However, the Rent Controller, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide and consequently, the application filed by the landlord was allowed. Aggrieved, the tenant filed an a














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top