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

1987 Supreme(SC) 696

G.L.OZA, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
B. R. Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Atma Devi – Respondent


Advocates:
AVADH BIHARI ROHTAGI, BHARAT SANGAL, BINA GUPTA, ROXNA S.SWAMY

Judgement

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- What is the true meaning of the expression tenant has before or after the commencement of the Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence in terms of Cl. (h) of S. 14(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) is the question raised in this appeal in the backdrop of interesting set of facts. This is an appeal by the tenant against the judgment and order dated 6th April, 1987 of the Delhi High Court. To the facts first, however, we must go to appreciate the point. The appellant was at all material times since 1968 a tenant of the ground floor of premises No. 2/14, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. The premises had been let out in April, 1968 to the appellant at a monthly rent of Rs. 340/- per month by one Shri R. N. Kurra, deceased husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents Nos. 2 to 8. The premises consist of two bed rooms, one drawing room, one dining room, one kitchen, two bath rooms and court-yard at the back and porch in the front and one store and also one verandah. It is the case of the appellant that originally the appellant had occupied these along with his wife, his aged mother








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