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

1989 Supreme(SC) 193

M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, R. S. PATHAK, S. NATARAJAN
Vatan Mal – Appellant
Versus
Kailash Nath – Respondent


Advocates:
B.P.S.MANGAT, I.MAKVANA, RAJINDER SACHAR, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.K.JAIN, Suresh Vohra

JUDGMENT

NATARAJAN, J. :— In this appeal by special leave arising from a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in a second appeal, the question for consideration is whether the appellant will not be entitled to claim the benefit of S. 13-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as has been held by the High Court. It is worthy of mention even here that though the suit for eviction filed by the respondent was pending on the date the Ordinance came to be promulgated, the appellant had no knowledge of the filing of the suit and he came to be served with notice in the suit only after some months after the Ordinance came to be promulgated. The High Court has based its conclusions on two factors viz. (1) no application under S. 13-A had been made by the appellant in the suit filed by the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of commencement of the Ordinance and (2) the suit had been filed before the Amending Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 was issued and hence the proceedings would be governed by the provisions of the unamended Act.

2. The facts are not in controversy and are briefly as under. Since 1961 the appellan

























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