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

1974 Supreme(Del) 116

T.V.R.TATACHARI, V.S.DESHPANDE
KRISHNA PARKASH – Appellant
Versus
SHANTA SINHA CHENOY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.M.KOHLI, C.N.MURTHY, S.PAPPU

V. S. DESHPANDE, J.

( 1 ) WHAT are the rights and remedies of an owner of immovable property against an unauthorised occupant and his licensee in respect of the property ? This question arises for consideration in this appeal on the following facts.

( 2 ) MRS. Chenoy, Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the premises at 20, Sunder Nagar, the ground floor of which was let out to Dr. Suraj Prakash at Rs. 1000 per month who was alleged to have had consulting medical practice on the premises.

( 3 ) WHILE a suit by the landlady against Dr. Suraj Prakash for eviction was pending before the Rent Controller, Dr. Suraj Prakash died. The Appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives, but the Rent Controller held that the proceedings for eviction before him abated on the death of the tenant inasmuch as the tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit before the eviction proceedings were filed. Dr. Suraj Prakash had become only a statutory tenant. Therefore, the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act to him came to an end with his death. As his legal representatives did not inherit either the tenancy or the statutory protection from Dr. Suraj Prakash and as the Rent Controlle





















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