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

1990 Supreme(SC) 756

S.R.PANDIAN, K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, M.FATHIMA BEEVI
Om Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Ram Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
HARBANS LAL BAJAJ, L.K.PANDEY, PREM MALHOTRA, R.S.Jena, RAJINDER SACHAR, UJAGAR SINGHb

JUDGMENT

FATHIMA BEEVI, J.:— The appeal by special leave arises from the proceedings for eviction under The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act). S. 13(2) of the Act enables the landlord of a building in possession of a tenant to seek eviction on an application for direction in that behalf on anyone of the grounds provided thereunder. If the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from the tenant in respect of the building within 15 days after expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of the tenancy with the landlord, the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession as provided in Cl. (i) of sub-see. (2) of S. 13 of the Act. S. 13 of the Act so far as it is material reads as under:-

"13. Eviction of tenants.-(I)A tenant in possession of a building or a rented land shall not be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller, for direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied,-

(i)

















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