RITA LAL Vs. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-45
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 13,2002
RITA LAL
Appellant
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CHARAN DASS DUGGAL V. BRAHMA NAND [REFERRED]BIJOY KUMAR SINGH V. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [REFERRED]
VASHU DEO VS. BALKISHAN [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
MD SALIM VS. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-7-162] [REFERRED TO]SURENDER KUMAR VS. M SALIM [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-354] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI ATUL SOODAN & OTHERS. VS. AJIT KUMAR & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK SADIQ ALI VS. MOHD. DASTAGIR DIED PER LRS [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-98] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMICHAND VS. PARASMAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-9-153] [REFERRED]
NIZAMUDDIN VS. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHARANPUR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-385] [REFERRED TO]
RATANLAL SONI VS. NITYANAND SANGHI [LAWS(APH)-2006-2-50] [RELIED ON]
GOMTI DEVI VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
KUNDAN SINGH VS. LAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2004-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
MESSERS TRINITY ENGINEERING TRADING CO VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION [LAWS(KAR)-2014-3-481] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. RAJENDER KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-306] [REFERRED TO]
ACHHELAL JAISWAL VS. RANIBAI DIXIT [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. TAHERUDDIN VS. MIR SABER ALI ALVI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2017-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
LRS OF IMAMUDIN VS. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE J D NO 1 BHILWARA AND PREM KISHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
MANJIT SINGH VS. VANI JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-500] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR BHATTI AND ORS. VS. RAM LUBHAYA VERMA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-243] [REFERRED TO]
RUSSEL PROPERTIES AND ESTATES VS. INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2010-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant, a widow and having undergone a kidney transplant, initiated an eviction petition under S. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter "the Act", for short). According to the appellant, the respondent an employee of the appellant, was inducted into possession of the premises under an agreement of lease dated 10th February, 1997. The grounds on which eviction is sought for are more than one and include the genuine requirement of the premises for landlord's self occupation and the respondent being a defaulter in payment of rent.
(3.)The respondent-tenant sought for leave to defend under sub-section (4) of S. 14 of the Act denying the landlord-tenant relationship and submitting that the suit property was owned by one R.N. Chakraborty, whose title on his death had devolved upon his son, Dr. Rajat Chakraborty and from the latter the respondent had purchased the property under registered deed of sale dated 24th February, 1998. It was submitted that as there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the respondent was not liable to pay rent and certainly not liable to be evicted. In the submission of the respondent, the pleadings raised a triable issue and, therefore, leave to defend ought to have been granted.
(2.)The appellant, a widow and having undergone a kidney transplant, initiated an eviction petition under S. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter "the Act", for short). According to the appellant, the respondent an employee of the appellant, was inducted into possession of the premises under an agreement of lease dated 10th February, 1997. The grounds on which eviction is sought for are more than one and include the genuine requirement of the premises for landlord's self occupation and the respondent being a defaulter in payment of rent.
(3.)The respondent-tenant sought for leave to defend under sub-section (4) of S. 14 of the Act denying the landlord-tenant relationship and submitting that the suit property was owned by one R.N. Chakraborty, whose title on his death had devolved upon his son, Dr. Rajat Chakraborty and from the latter the respondent had purchased the property under registered deed of sale dated 24th February, 1998. It was submitted that as there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the respondent was not liable to pay rent and certainly not liable to be evicted. In the submission of the respondent, the pleadings raised a triable issue and, therefore, leave to defend ought to have been granted.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.