Back
1996 Supreme(SC) 305
`SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G B Pattanaik, Kuldip Singh
BOORGU JAGADESHWARAIAH AND SONS, APPELLANT;
VERSUS
PUSHPA TRADING CO., RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 8466 of 1995 (CC No. 5325 of 1995), decided on February 7, 1996.
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Landlord and Tenant
Headnote
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed by a landlord after being non-suited by the lower appellate court. The lower court had concluded that the newly constructed premises provided by the landlord were not suitable for the business the landlord was conducting, relying on a specific precedent. The appellant cited other conflicting precedents to challenge this conclusion.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that in the interest of justice, the matter should be heard by a larger bench to resolve the conflicting legal positions presented by the cited precedents.
Issues: Whether the suitability of newly constructed premises for the landlord's business is a determining factor in the recovery of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: When there are conflicting judgments from the apex court on a point of law, the matter should be referred to a larger bench for definitive resolution.
Result: Matter referred to a three-Judge Bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
landlord and tenant
- suitability of premises
-
landlord and tenant
-
practice and procedure
-
judicial administration
- referral to larger bench
-
judicial administration
ORDER
This is a landlords appeal. The High Court has non-suited the appellant following the judgment of this Court in D. Devaji v. K. Sudarashana Rao [1994 Supp (1) SCC 729]. The High Court came to the conclusion that the newly-constructed premises by the landlord was not suitable for the business which the landlord was doing, but following the judgment in Devaji case [1994 Supp (1) SCC 729] the High Court decided the appeal against the landlord. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited J. Pandu v. R. Narsubai [(1987) 1 SCC 573] and Saroj Kumar Das (Dr) v. Arjun Prasad Jogani [(1987) 4 SCC 262]. We are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice that these maters be heard by a three-Judge Bench. The papers be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for listing the matters before a three-Judge Bench.
