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

1992 Supreme(SC) 130

G.N.RAY, K.RAMASWAMY
Vishnu Narayan Gadskari – Appellant
Versus
Paralal Baladev Uza – Respondent


(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE respondents laid the proceedings under Section 21(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, for short the Act for ejectment of the tenant, Vishnu Narayan Gadskari. The District Munsif, Belgaon granted a decree for ejectment and an appeal was filed and during its pendency the tenant died. Thereafter, the appellants came on record as his legal representatives. The District Judge held that the tenancy was not heritable. Accordingly, the appellants cannot maintain the appeal. On that finding, the appeal was dismissed and on revision the High court confirmed the order of the District Judge. Hence this appeal by special leave under Article 136.

(3) ADMITTEDLY, the premises is a non-residential one. Section 3(r) defines the tenant:

(R) "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a premises and "includes" the surviving spouse or any son or daughter or father or mother of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the premises as a member of the tenants family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but doe






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