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

1984 Supreme(SC) 38

A.V.VARADARAJAN, D.A.DESAI
Kamal Arora – Appellant
Versus
Amar Singh – Respondent


(1) THE respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant under S. 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Rent Act for short) on the ground that the respondent-landlord who was about to retire from the service bona fide required possession of the house for his residence. The appellant-tenant contested the petition inter alia on the ground that the building in question is being used for running a school and therefore, it is a non-residential building within the meaning of the expression in the Rent Act and therefore the landlord was not entitled to recover possession on the ground that he bona fide required the same for residence more so after having knowingly let it out for non-residential use. The trial court dismissed the petition holding that the respondentlandlord had leased the premises to the tenant to be used for non-residential purpose and therefore the landlord is not entitled to recover possession on the ground that he required the same for his residence. The appellate court in appeal by the respondent reversed the decree of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction and this decree for eviction was confirmed by the High court








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