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

1968 Supreme(P&H) 78

R.S.NARULA, SHAMSHER BAHADUR
Dhan Devi – Appellant
Versus
Bakhshi Ram – Respondent


JudgmentJudgment

R.S.Narula, J.

1. Since two common questions of law arise in all these three petitions for revision under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (East Punjab Act No. 3 of 1949), hereinafter called "the Act" it would be convenient to dispose of all of them together by a common judgment. The first of the questions relates to the interpretation and scope of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. The second question, which has been raised for the first time before us and in the nature of things could not have been raised any earlier, is as to the effect of the death of a successful landlord pending a revision petition against an order for ejectment passed in his favour on the groud of personal requirements.

2. The three cases arise out of three separate applications for the ejectment filled by Bakhshi Ram (original respondent in these petitions-since deceased - and now represented by his widow and adopted son, to whom I will refer in this judgment as the landlord) against his tenants in respect of three separate plots of land originally rented out to each of them for carrying on the business of the respecti














































































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