JAGAT PAL DHAWAN Vs. KAHAN SINGHDEAD
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-58
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: HIMACHAL PRADESH)
Decided on
November 21,2002
JAGAT PAL DHAWAN
Appellant
VERSUS
KAHAN SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
METALWARE AND CO S JATANMAL SAMANDARIYA JAYANTILAL JAYNARAYANJEE S JATANMAL SAMANDARIYA VS. BANSILAL SARMA AND CO :PRAKASHMAL BHANDARI:PRAKASHMAL BHANDARI:PRAKASHMAL BHANDARI [REFERRED TO]PORR AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ASSOCIATED PUBLISHERS MADRAS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SINGH VS. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
R V E VENKATACHALA GOUNDER VS. VENKATESHA GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL VS. S M ISPAHANI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
R DAYANANDA GUPTA VS. LAKSHMI VENKATADRI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-256] [REFERRED TO]GIAN CHAND VS. DAVESH SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2007-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV CHARAN DASS VS. UPDESH SAHNI [LAWS(HPH)-2011-1-145] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV PRASHAD VS. HARI DASS SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2011-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
PARDEEP KUMAR OHARI AND ORS. VS. PURNA DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-126] [REFERRED TO]
DHANI RAM SON OF CHAUDHARY RAM VS. KRISHANA PRASAD SON OF LATE SATYA NARAYAN [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-263] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN CHAND AND SONS VS. JOGINDER KAUR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-11-272] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMANI DEVI VS. PYARE LAL SOOD [LAWS(HPH)-2010-9-151] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHAND VS. KANGRA RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2011-4-153] [REFERRED TO]
Sundararaj died VS. Logia Aided Middle School [LAWS(MAD)-2004-3-289] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PIARI VS. MELO DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2007-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP LAL JAURA VS. ADARSH CONFECTIONERS [LAWS(HPH)-2011-9-430] [REFERRED]
KISHORI MOHAN SINHA ALIAS SINGHA VS. KUMARESH SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-7-173] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL VS. SHANKAR KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2022-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
RIKHI RAM VS. LAJWANTI [LAWS(HPH)-2009-11-93] [REFERRED]
ANIL KUMAR VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2010-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
ZARINA P.K. DAVID VS. PURUSHOTAM LAL SHARMA. [LAWS(HPH)-2011-3-375] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN KUMAR WAHI VS. SMT. SNEH KUTHIALA [LAWS(HPH)-2011-6-78] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN VS. ISHWAR CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2013-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK BOOT HOUSE VS. PIYARE LAL SOOD [LAWS(HPH)-2013-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
HARI DASS SHARMA VS. VIKAS SOOD [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
KALAWATI VS. RAJESH KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2003-7-23] [REFERRED]
PHOOLA DEVI VS. CHANDU LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2010-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUJEET SINGH AND ORS. VS. NARINDER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2010-6-161] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN DAWAR VS. DHARAM PAL KAPOOR [LAWS(HPH)-2010-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH SHARMA VS. SAT PAL SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2010-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN DAWAR VS. SURINDER SINGH KHERA [LAWS(HPH)-2022-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
Mangalambal VS. Anjali Devi [LAWS(MAD)-2004-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
Khyrunnissa VS. Rose Nissa [LAWS(MAD)-2005-3-117] [REFERRED TO]
SUKH DEV SINGH PADAM VS. YOUNG MENS CHRISTEN ASSOCIATION [LAWS(HPH)-2023-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BHAJAN SINGH VS. SANJAY KUTHIALA [LAWS(HPH)-2007-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KUMAR VS. JOGINDER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2007-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
Nand Kishore Bansal VS. Idrish [LAWS(HPH)-2008-12-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAM RATTAN VS. SUNIL SOOD [LAWS(HPH)-2009-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHANA DEVI VS. ARUN KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2011-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
KESRI DEVI VS. HARI DASS SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2011-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
LIN KUEI TSAN VS. ASHOK KUMAR GOEL [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The landlord-plaintiff, whose prayer seeking eviction of his tenant under clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 14 of the himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control act, 1987 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) has been refused, is in appeal by special leave.
(2.)The suit premises are nonresidential, consisting of one room and verandah on the ground floor, and one room on the first floor, in building no. 10/11, situated in mohalla Tarna, Seri Bazar, Mandi. The premises are owned by the appellant and held by the respondent on tenancy since 1950s. The premises are constructed of mud morter with cement plaster on the inner sides of the walls. The top has a roof of slates. The structure is about 100 years old.
(3.)On 28. 05.1988, the landlord initiated proceedings under section 14 (3) (c) of the act alleging that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for reconstruction into three storeyed structure which cannot be carried out without the demised premises being vacated. According to the landlord, the demised premises, looking to their age and nature of construction, had outlived their utility. The requirement and its bona fides were questioned by the tenant-respondent who submitted that the structure of the building was safe and certainly not dangerous and hence did not stand in need of any reconstruction.
(2.)The suit premises are nonresidential, consisting of one room and verandah on the ground floor, and one room on the first floor, in building no. 10/11, situated in mohalla Tarna, Seri Bazar, Mandi. The premises are owned by the appellant and held by the respondent on tenancy since 1950s. The premises are constructed of mud morter with cement plaster on the inner sides of the walls. The top has a roof of slates. The structure is about 100 years old.
(3.)On 28. 05.1988, the landlord initiated proceedings under section 14 (3) (c) of the act alleging that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for reconstruction into three storeyed structure which cannot be carried out without the demised premises being vacated. According to the landlord, the demised premises, looking to their age and nature of construction, had outlived their utility. The requirement and its bona fides were questioned by the tenant-respondent who submitted that the structure of the building was safe and certainly not dangerous and hence did not stand in need of any reconstruction.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.