VINEET SARAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Puri Investments – Appellant
Versus
Young Friends and Co. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, as the landlord, is the original applicant in an eviction proceeding instituted under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking recovery of possession of a shop room located at Connaught Place in the central part of Delhi. The eviction proceeding was instituted in the year 1974. We shall henceforth refer to the shop room as “subject-premises”. In that proceeding instituted before the Rent Controller, Delhi, altogether three individuals and three firms were originally impleaded as respondents. In this appeal, however, only three respondents have been impleaded, being the firm-Young Friends & Co. and two individuals – Ashu Mohan Gupta and Shashi Gupta. They have been described as contesting respondents. On that count, however, no controversy has been raised before us. The appellant admittedly is the landlord of the subject-premises. This was rented out to the then proprietor (since deceased) of the first respondent in the year 1936. The appellant became the landlord thereof on having purchased the subject-premises from its erstwhile owner in the year 1958. The main ground on which eviction w
Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [(1998) 3 SCC 1]
Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) & Ors. v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar & Ors. [(2010) 1 SCC 217]
Dipak Banerjee v. Lilabati Chakraborty [(1987) 4 SCC 161]
Flora Elias Nahoum & Ors. v. Idrish Ali Laskar [(2018) 2 SCC 485]
Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan & Ors. [(1988) 3 SCC 57]
Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi & Ors. [(2017) 15 SCC 230]
Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr. v. S Chokesiri & Co. [(1989) 1 SCC 19]
Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H. C. Sharma & Ors. [(1988) 1 SCC 70]
The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the burden of proof in cases of sub-letting under the Delhi Rent Contr....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the creation of a sub-tenancy depends on the specific facts of each case and cannot be presumed solely based on a family member assisting i....
Revisional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence. Once a landlord proves a third party is in exclusive possession, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove the arrangement is a genuine partnership and....
Landlords failed to prove bona fide need for eviction under the Kerala Buildings Act, as necessary evidence was not presented, leading to restoration of the Rent Control Court's decision.
High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal.
The main legal point established is that sub-tenants must obtain written permission for sub-letting and provide a written notice of sub-tenancy to the landlord to be eligible for protection under the....
The court confirmed that under Article 227, it cannot reappraise evidence but must ensure lower courts operate within their jurisdiction, affirming illegal sub-letting without owner's consent.
Tenants must establish the identity of vacant premises for eviction claims under the Rent Control Act; the court's supervisory role is limited to evident judicial errors.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving unlawful sub-letting rests with the landlord and clarified the distinction between revisional and appellate jurisdiction, emphasizing that High....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof in cases of subletting and the implications of accepting rent despite subletting.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.