WAZIR CHAND Vs. SWARANKAR SABHA
LAWS(SC)-1990-2-42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 15,1990

WAZIR CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
SWARANKAR SABHA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

JAI DEV SINGH VS. M.L. KAPOOR [LAWS(P&H)-2006-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWA MITTAR VS. MANOHAR LAL MAKKAR [LAWS(P&H)-2004-5-31] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Wazir Chand, the appellant was a tent of the building belonging to the respondent. He has been ordered to be evicted on the ground that the building under his occupation was unfit for human habitation. He has now appealed to this court challenging the eviction order. He has also raised another contention that even if the eviction could be justified on the ground that the building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation, he has a right of re-entry to the newly constructed building and a landlord is therefore, obliged to give him the space equivalent to the one he was earlier occupying in the old building.
(2.)The question of considering the validity of the eviction order does not arise since counsel on both sides admitted before us that the building has been re-constructed and it is now being used as "dharamshala". The only question that survives for consideration is whether the tenant could claim that he has got a right of re-entry to the newly constructed building.
(3.)Ss. (3) (c) and (6) of S. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 are relevant and they are as under: "section 13 (3) (c) : In the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the State government or local authority or any improvement trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit r human habitation. Sec. 13 (6) : Where a landlord, who has obtained possession of a building or rented land in pursuance of an order under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) or clause (b) of Ss. (3) , does not himself occupy it or if possion was obtained under sub-clause (v) of clause (a) of subsection (3) , his family does not occupy the residential building, or if possession was obtained by him on behalf of his son in pursuance of an order under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Ss. (3) , his son does not occupy it for the purpose for which possession was obtained for a continuous period of twelve months from the date of obtaining possession or if possession was obtained under Ss. (3a) he does not occupy it for his exclusive personal use, for a continuous period of three years or where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building under clause (c) of Ss. (3) puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that the possession of such building or rented land shall be restored to him and the Controller shall make an order accordingly. "
;


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