Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 1746
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, Deepak Gupta, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Ram Raj Chaurasia - Appellant
Versus
Sharda Devi - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8066 of 2015
Decided On : 20-11-2018
Rakesh Kumar Singh, Vijay Pratap Singh, Prem Prakash, Advocates., for the Appellants; M.A. Chinnasamy, Dr. Nafis A. Siddiqui, Advocates., for the Respondents
Eviction on the ground of reconstruction and the tenant's right to seek available remedies under the law.
Headnote:
Reconstruction - Tenant - The appellant, a tenant, was evicted on the ground of the landlord's requirement for reconstruction. The appellant claimed collusion between the landlord and the builder, resulting in deprivation of livelihood. The landlord alleged collusion between the appellant and the builder. The court found the appellant evicted on the ground of reconstruction and directed him to seek available remedies under the law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, was evicted on the ground of the landlord's requirement for reconstruction. The appellant alleged collusion between the landlord and the builder, leading to deprivation of livelihood.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was evicted on the ground of reconstruction and directed him to seek available remedies under the law.
Issues: Eviction on the ground of reconstruction, Allegations of collusion between landlord and builder, Deprivation of livelihood
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the eviction of the appellant on the ground of reconstruction, without delving into the allegations of collusion or deprivation of livelihood.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeal and directed the appellant to seek available remedies under the law.
JUDGMENT
Kurian, J. - The appellant is the tenant. He was evicted on the ground of requirement of the landlord for reconstruction. It is the case of the appellant that on account of collusion between the landlord and the builder, no reconstruction is taking place and virtually, he is devoid of his livelihood.
2. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent, who is the builder. It is the case of the first respondent-landlord that actually it is the collusion between the appellant and the builder.
3. Be that as it may, we find that the appellant has been evicted in the year 2015 on the ground of need for reconstruction. Now that the appellant has been evicted, it is for him to work out his remedy available to him under law. Without prejudice to such liberty, this appeal is disposed of.
4. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
