PUSHPA DEVI Vs. MILKHI RAM DEAD
LAWS(SC)-1990-2-7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on February 08,1990

PUSHPA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
MILKHI RAM Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL VS. THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2021-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
HEERA TRADERS VS. KAMLA JAIN [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-84] [REFERRED TO]
BABU RAM DEAD VS. MULKHA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1992-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD NASIR ABDUL AZIZ VS. RABIYABAI [LAWS(MPH)-1997-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
P M PARTHAKUMAR VS. AJITH VISWANATHAN [LAWS(KER)-2006-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH NARAIN MATHUR VS. SHANTI PRASHAD JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2008-1-111] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHBHAI ISHWARBHAI ROCHANI VS. COSMOS CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2012-11-205] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD VS. RADHEY SHYAM [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-215] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD NASIR VS. RABIYABI [LAWS(MPH)-1997-2-41] [REFERRED TO]
SAMATHA HYDERABAD ABRASIVES AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1997-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
PRINTERS MYSORE LIMITED VS. ASSTT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-1994-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH TANDON VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALLAHABAD U P [LAWS(SC)-1995-1-93] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KANT VS. SONA DEVI [LAWS(SC)-2002-2-10] [REFERRED]
K M RAMAKRISHNE GODWA VS. SENIOR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(KAR)-1990-10-59] [REFERRED TO]
HARKAISH P.BHADORIA VS. UNION OF INDIA THRO MINISTRY OF FINANCE [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-137] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION VS. SHRI PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA BOARDING HOUSES COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-53] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR VS. KRISHAN KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-1996-4-63] [REFERRED TO]
RAMVILAS BAJAJ VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. P. RAMESH [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHBHAI ISHWARBHAI ROCHANI VS. COSMOS COOPERATIVE BANK LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-163] [REFERRED TO]
PRUDENT ARC LIMITED VS. SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES [LAWS(DLH)-2020-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
GURDEEP KAUR VS. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA [LAWS(P&H)-1993-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
KALAVATHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1992-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
D.K.SHIVAKUMAR VS. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT [LAWS(KAR)-2019-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. NAND LAL [LAWS(P&H)-1999-7-21] [REFERRED]
RAMVILAS BAJAJ VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
MALA MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2014-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
SALEMFORT KHONGLAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2007-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. VS. Manohar [LAWS(MPH)-1996-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. ANIL KUMAR KATHPAL [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-407] [REFERRED TO]
MADHVI SINGH & ORS VS. PAVIK LIFESTYLE LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITA CHHABRA VS. RAMJI CHHABRA [LAWS(ALL)-1991-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
HASSAN THERMAL POWER PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-9-116] [REFERRED TO]
RASIKCHANDRA DEVSHANKER ACHARYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1994-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASHEKAR V. PATTANSHETTI VS. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-1994-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
PARMANAND VS. SMT. DAMINI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-244] [REFERRED TO]
PARMANAND VS. DAMINI V MAHADIK AND ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-261] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI PARKASH VS. DEWAN CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-1998-12-62] [REFERRED]
JOHN VS. NALUMAKKAL SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD [LAWS(KER)-1991-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
MONOJ LAL SEAL AND ORS. VS. OCTAVIOUS TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-94] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. - (1.)The appeal concerns the scope and construction of S. 13 sub-sec. (2)(i) proviso of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (called shortly as The Act). The point at issue relates to the validity of the arrears; of rent deposited by the tenant under the proviso.
(2.)Milkhi Ram- the respondent in this appeal is the landlord of the premises consisting of a shop at Ludhiana. In February, 1958 the shop was taken on rent by Amar Chand. The rent agreed was Rs. 45/- per month. In December, 1975 Amar Chand died. His brother Diwan Chand succeeded to the tenancy rights. In November, 1976 he also died leaving behind his widow Pushpa Devi and his minor son Yashpal. They are respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal. The landlord brought an action for eviction under S. 13 of the Act on the ground of arrears of rent, subletting etc. His case was that respondents 1 and 2 inducted Saligram respondent No. 3 as sub-tenant and delivered exclusive possession of the shop premises. The eviction was also sought on the ground that the tenant has made alterations resulting in material impairment in the value and utility of the premises. The respondent's case was that the shop was taken on lease by Amar Chand as partner of the firm M/s. Amar Chand in which Amar Chand, Diwan Chand and Saligram were all partners in the business from very commencement of tenancy. They denied that Saligram was inducted as subtenant. They also refuted the allegations as to material alterations affecting the value and utility of the premises.
(3.)Before the Rent Controller the respondents on the first date of hearing tendered the arrears of rent, with interest and cost determined by the Controller. The amount was rendered evidently under the proviso to S. 13, sub-sec. (2)(i) of the Act. Mr. Satpal Singh the common counsel for all the respondents tendered the amount along with his statement, which reads as follows:
"I tender Rs. 2025/- as arrears of rent from 1-12-1975 to 31-8-1979, Rs. 240/- as interest and Rs. 25 / - as costs as assessed on behalf of all the respondents, total amounting to Rs. 2290/ -.

;


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