Back
1988 Supreme(SC) 245
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S.Pathak, CJI., M.N.Venkatachaliah, S.Natarajan, JJ.
Aupadi
Versus
Gorakhnath Gupta
Case No. : 1276 of 1988
Date of Decision : 3/30/88
Act Referred
Headnote
Control Act, 1977 - S. 8 – Tenant – Claim of compensation - Amount lying in excess with landlord was admittedly part of rent paid originally by the tenants at the higher rate - Tenants did not pay rent due - There is no dispute that amount lying in excess would cover amount due by way of rent for those two months. It is also not in dispute that tenants have been depositing the rent regularly ever since – Held, In circumstances we allowed appeal set aside judgments and orders of the High court and of the courts below and dismiss the suit for eviction – Court may observe that we do not think it necessary in this particular case to consider the operation of the provisions of Ss. of S. 8 of Bihar Buildings Control Act, 1977 - Appeal is disposed
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THE amount lying in excess with the landlord was admittedly part of the rent paid originally by the tenants at the higher rate. The tenants did not pay the rent due for February and March 1966. There is no dispute that the amount lying in excess would cover the amount due by way of rent for those two months. It is also not in dispute that the tenants have been depositing the rent regularly ever since.
(3) IN the circumstances, we allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and orders of the High court and of the courts below and dismiss the suit for eviction. We may observe that we do not think it necessary in this particular case to consider the operation of the provisions of Ss. (2 of S. 8 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977.
(4) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
