Civil Appeal Nos. 6140-6141/2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 26275-26276/2008). Case: Sunita Rani and Ors. Vs Sri Chand and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal Nos. 6140-6141/2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 26275-26276/2008) |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv and For the Respondents: Vivek Gupta and Chandan Ramamurthi (NP), Adv. |
| Judges | S.H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam, JJ. |
| Issue | Uttar Pradesh Rent Control Act; Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 |
| Citation | 2009 (4) AWC 165 (SC) , JT 2009 (15) SC 344 , 2009 (12) SCALE 470 , (2009) 10 SCC 628 |
| Judgement Date | September 07, 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Order:
S.H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Application for deletion of the name of Respondent No. 4 is allowed.
Leave granted
-
The respondents (Landlord) instituted proceedings for eviction of the appellants (Tenant) from three different premises let out to them at different times. One of the proceedings was in respect of a go-down let out to the appellants at the monthly rental of Rs. 50/-. The other was in regard to a shop with the monthly rental of Rs. 35/- and the third was for a kothari on the monthly rental of Rs. 15/-.
-
The Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Deoband, Saharanpur, consolidated the three proceedings and by a common judgment and order dated 8 November, 1983 dismissed all the three eviction/release petitions filed by the respondents.
-
Against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority the respondents preferred appeals before the Additional Judge, Saharanpur. The appellate authority allowed the appeal relating to the go-down and ordered its release/ eviction of the appellants by judgment and order dated 30 May, 1989. By the same judgment, however, it rejected the respondents' appeals in regard to the other two premises, namely, the shop and the kothari.
-
The respondents filed two writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court challenging the orders rejecting his eviction/release petitions in respect of the shop and the kothari. The appellants too approached the High Court in a writ petition against the judgment of the appellate authority in so far as it allowed release of the go-down in favour of the respondents. The High Court, like the two courts below, heard all the three writ petitions together and disposed them of by a common judgment and order dated 19 August, 2008. The High Court held that the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate court was eminently just and in accordance with law. It therefore, dismissed all the three writ petitions.
-
But the High Court did not stop there. It felt that the existing rent of the shop and the kothari (in regard to which the landlord's eviction/release petitions were finally rejected) was very low and was liable to be increased. It, accordingly, passed the following order:
The existing rent of Rs. 50/- per month for two accommodations, kothari and shop left in the occupation of the tenant, is extremely inadequate. Accordingly, it is directed that w.e.f. August 2008 onwards tenants shall pay rent for the portion left in their occupation, i.e. kothari...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Civil Revision Nos. 327, 373 and 369 of 2011. Case: Ashwani Kumar Kohli Vs Rajesh Prasad Agrawal and Another. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...him on State of Maharashtra v. Super Max International Put. Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 772 and Sunita Rani and others v. Sri Chand and others, (2009) 10 SCC 628. Reference was also made to another judgment in Niyas Ahmad Khan v. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan and another, (2008) 7 SCC Sri Jafar Nayyar a......
-
RC. Rev. 110/2015 & CM 4179/2015. Case: Sobti Furniture Mart Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ravinder Kumar Suri. High Court of Delhi (India)
... ... rate, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs ... Furniture relying upon the decision in Sunita Rani & Ors. Vs. Sri Chand & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC ... , the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the landlord in respect of the go-down and ... under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate court does have ... ...
-
RC.REV.--110/2015. Case: M/S SOBTI FURNITURE MART PVT LTD Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR SURI. High Court of Delhi (India)
...Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705. Learned counsel for Sobti Furniture relying upon the decision Sunita Rani & Ors. Vs. Sri Chand & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 628 submits the law as laid down in Atma Ram Properties is no more good law view of this subsequent decision the Court cannot fix rent more than......
-
Civil Revision Nos. 327, 373 and 369 of 2011. Case: Ashwani Kumar Kohli Vs Rajesh Prasad Agrawal and Another. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...him on State of Maharashtra v. Super Max International Put. Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 772 and Sunita Rani and others v. Sri Chand and others, (2009) 10 SCC 628. Reference was also made to another judgment in Niyas Ahmad Khan v. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan and another, (2008) 7 SCC Sri Jafar Nayyar a......
-
RC. Rev. 110/2015 & CM 4179/2015. Case: Sobti Furniture Mart Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ravinder Kumar Suri. High Court of Delhi (India)
... ... rate, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs ... Furniture relying upon the decision in Sunita Rani & Ors. Vs. Sri Chand & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC ... , the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the landlord in respect of the go-down and ... under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate court does have ... ...
-
RC.REV.--110/2015. Case: M/S SOBTI FURNITURE MART PVT LTD Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR SURI. High Court of Delhi (India)
...Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705. Learned counsel for Sobti Furniture relying upon the decision Sunita Rani & Ors. Vs. Sri Chand & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 628 submits the law as laid down in Atma Ram Properties is no more good law view of this subsequent decision the Court cannot fix rent more than......