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

1988 Supreme(SC) 523

S.RANGANATHAN, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
Atma Ram Mittal – Appellant
Versus
Ishwar Singh Punia – Respondent


Advocates:
Abha Jain, K.C.Sharma, R.K.JAIN, R.K.VIRMANI

Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- Special leave granted. The appeal is disposed of herein after hearing counsel for both the parties.

2. The appellant-landlord filed a suit for possession in the Civil Court of Hissar in Haryana. The respondent is the tenant in the shop situated at Raj Guru Market which had been rented out to the respondent in 1978. The suit was filed on the basis that the respondent was in arrears of rent from 1st December, 1981 to 31st May, 1982 and the tenancy of the respondent had been terminated by giving him notice. The suit was filed for recovery of possession on the termination or expiry of the period of tenancy. It was filed because of Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control) of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Act was passed with the object to control the increase of rent of certain buildings and rented land situated within the limits of urban areas and the eviction of tenants therefrom. For our present purpose, it would suffice if we bear in mind two relevant provisions. Section 1(3) of the Act provides as follows :

"Nothing in this Act shall apply to any building the construction of which is completed on or after t













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