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

2004 Supreme(P&H) 1074

M.M.KUMAR
Jagdish Chand – Appellant
Versus
Surinder Kumar – Respondent


Judgment

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed by the landlord under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949 (for brevity, the Act) challenges concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-respondent has not indulged in change of use of the demised shop as envisaged by Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. Both the Courts have found that the change of business from cloth merchant to sale of note - books and stationery items etc. would not amount to change of user within the meaning of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act especially when the rent note describing the purpose of letting out the demised shop has not been held admissible in evidence for want of registration.

2. The controversy although is legal, yet few facts are necessary for focusing the issue raised. The landlord-petitioner filed an ejectment petition being File No. 19 dated 10.3.1998 claiming that the tenant-respondent took the demised shop on rent from him for setting up his cloth business on a yearly rent of Rs. 16,000/- along with house tax besides other charges for a period of one year. A rent note was also executed by the tenant-respondent in favour of the lan















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