Back
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
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
