Back
2011 (4) Supreme 222
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Ram Prakash Sharma — Appellant
versus
Babulal irla (D) By Lrs. & Others — Applicants/Respondents
I.A. No.3 of 2011
in
Civil Appeal No. 5310 of 2010
Decided on : 12-5-2011
Facts of the case:
This case relates to eviction of the tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The Chronic problem of tenants’ not vacating premises despite court orders or their own undertaking needs to be tackled.
Result : General direction issued.
ORDER
Taken on Board.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, time to vacate the premises in question is extended till 31st August, 2011 and if the tenants do not vacate on or before the said date, they will be evicted by police force.
4. We further make it clear that when this Court allows the petition/appeal of the landlord or dismisses the petition/appeal of the tenant and grant some time to vacate the premises in question and if the tenant does not vacate within the time granted, the tenant shall be evicted by police force. This is a general direction we are passing because we are coming across several cases where the tenants are not vacating the premises in question despite granting time by this Court or despite furnishing an undertaking to this Court with a result that the landlord has to initiate contempt proceedings or any other proceedings. Hence, we CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5310 OF 2010 give a general direction that when tenant’s petition/appeal is dismissed and he is given time to vacate then on the expiry of that time, he will be evicted by police force if he does not vacate of his own.
5. If any extension of time to vacate is desired, that application should be filed well in advance.
6. The Interlocutory Application is allowed accordingly.
***********
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
