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

2002 Supreme(SC) 1140

Jagat Pal Dhawan – Appellant
Versus
Kahan Singh – Respondent


JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-The landlord-plaintiff, whose prayer seeking eviction of his tenant under Clause (c) of sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter the act , for short) has been refused, is in appeal by special leave.

2. The suit premises are non-residential, consisting of one room and verandah on the ground floor, and one room on the first floor, in building No. 10/11, situated in Mohalla Tarna, Seri Bazar, Mandi. The premises are owned by the appellant and held by the respondent on tenancy since 1950s. The premises are constructed of mud mortar with cement plaster on the inner sides of the walls. The top has a roof of slates. The structure is about 100 years old.

3. On 28.5.1988, the landlord initiated proceedings under Section 14(3) (c) of the Act alleging that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for reconstruction into three storeyed structure which cannot be carried out without the demised premises being vacated. According to the landlord, the demised premises, looking to their age and nature of construction, had outlived their utility. The requirement and its bona fides were questioned by the tenant





















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