NAND RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS.
LAWS(SC)-2020-3-91
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 19,2020

Nand Ram (D) Through Lrs. And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Jagdish Prasad (D) Through Lrs. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CHANDN VS. DAJI BHAU [REFERRED TO]
FARMAN BIBI VS. TASHA HADDAL HOSSEIN [REFERRED TO]
LACHMAYA SHIVRAM MADUR,HEIR OF ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF VS. MALLAYA LINGAYA CHILAKA [REFERRED TO]
ISHAR SINGH VS. SARWAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NANAK SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA PRASAD BAJOO JAISWAL VS. DOSSIBAI N B JEEJEEBHOYF [REFERRED TO]
BHAWANJI LAKHAMSHI VS. HIMATLAL JAMNADAS DANI [REFERRED TO]
BADRILAL VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF INDORE [REFERRED TO]
SYED MOHAMMAD SALIE LABBAI OEAD VS. MOHAMMAD HANIFAVICE VERSA [REFERRED TO]
R V BHUPALPRASAD VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SAJJADANASHIN SAYED MD B E EDR D VS. MUSA DADABHAI UMMER [REFERRED TO]
SHEO DULARE LAL SAH VS. ANANT RAM [REFERRED TO]
BISHESHAR NATH VS. KUNDAN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MOTI KUMARI VS. MD. HABIBUR RAHMAN [LAWS(GAU)-2022-2-135] [REFERRED TO]
NEMAI CHANDRA KUMAR (D) THR. LRS VS. MANI SQUARE LTD [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
SRI ARUNACHALA MUDALIAR CHARITIES, KANCHIPURAM VS. SUBBURAYA MUDALIAR HIGH SCHOOL, KANCHIPURAM [LAWS(MAD)-2020-10-259] [REFERRED TO]
RUKUMANI AMMAL VS. P. A. PERIYASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
JAMIA MASJID VS. K. V. RUDRAPPA [LAWS(SC)-2021-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
BETSY VARGHESE VS. ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE & FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-10-102] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

HEMANT GUPTA,J. - (1.)The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 12th November, 2010 whereby the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and the suit for possession of land comprising in Khasra No. 9/19 measuring 3 Bighas 11 Biswas was dismissed.
(2.)The appellants-plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8, as legal heirs of one Bhagwana, filed a suit for possession asserting that they were owners in possession of land measuring 3 Bighas 11 Biswas comprising in Khasra No.9/19 and land measuring 1 Bigha 16 Biswas comprising in Khasra No. 9/20/2, total measuring 5 Bighas 7 Biswas in the revenue estate of Village Tatarpur, Delhi.
(3.)The land measuring 1 Bigha 19 Biswas out of Khasra No. 9/19 and 16 Biswas out of Khasra No. 9/20/2, in total measuring 2 Bighas 15 Biswas was taken on lease for 20 years commencing from 23rd September, 1954 till 22nd September, 1974 on payment of Rs.235/-per year by Jagdish Prasad, the defendant. It was agreed between the parties that it will not be open to the plaintiff-lessor to seek ejectment of the defendant-lessee from the leased premises, however, if the rent for one year remained in arrear, then the lessor would have the right to eject the lessee. The relevant conditions read as under:
"7. Before the expiry of said lease it shall not be within the rights of the lessor i.e., party of the First Part to seek ejectment of party of the second part from the leased premises.

xx xx xx

9. If rent for one year remains in arrears, then in that eventuality the lessor i.e., party of the First Part will have the right to eject the lessee i.e., party of the Second Part from the property leased and the party of the Second Part will remove all his malba from the land leased and deliver vacant possession to the party of the First Part."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.