VITHAL N SHETTI Vs. PRAKASH N RUDRAKAR
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-84
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
November 20,2002
VITHAL N.SHETTI
Appellant
VERSUS
PRAKASH N.RUDRAKAR
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
BANDHU BAXIA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-4-37] [REFERRED TO]RAJ KISHORE BEHERA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANR. [LAWS(ORI)-2009-1-77] [REFERRED TO]
BIPUL CHANDRA DEY ALIAS BIPUL BIHARIDEY VS. TRIPURA JUTE MILLS [LAWS(GAU)-2005-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE TPT CORPN. VS. BAJRANG LAL [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU BAHUGUNA VS. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(UTN)-2020-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
F.C.I. MAZDOOR SANGH VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-264] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-2-190] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PALIKA AHREORA VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-235] [REFERRED TO]
GAYA PRASAD CHAUDHARY VS. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MADHYAMIK [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-167] [REFERRED TO]
NANAK CHAND VS. DAYA RAM [LAWS(UTN)-2021-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
KANAKA RANA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ASLAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SANEHI PANDEY VS. U P RAJYA VIDYUT PARISHAD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-136] [REFERRED TO]
MOTIBEN JADAVBHAI MALANI EDUCATION & CHARITABLE TRUST VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-173] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI SUSHILA YADAV VS. ATUL CHAUDHARY AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-85] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAND TOLANI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU LAL VS. DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER DIRECTOR OF BASIC EDUCATION STATE OF U P AND [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
HARPAL SINGH VS. JOINT HINDU FAMILY M/S KISHORE LAL RAJINDER KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2012-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
LALA MANGAT RAM MAHAVIDYALAYA VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECY. HIGHER EDU. [LAWS(ALL)-2011-5-489] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHORE VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION DIVISION U P POWER CORPORATION [LAWS(ALL)-2003-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
EHTESHAM ULLAH KHAN VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-118] [REFERRED TO]
RAJVIR SINGH VS. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KISAN DEGREE COLLEGE, SIMBHAOLI & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-308] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V S SARDARSHAHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2010-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
RITESH TEWARI VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(SC)-2010-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
K.SHYAMALA VS. KHALEEL BASHA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAM SUSHIL GARG VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2003-10-156] [REFERRED TO]
DAYASADAN VS. MADRAS PINJRAPOLE [LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALDAS KUMANDAS VED VS. GHEVARCHAND G. CHORDIYA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-105] [REFERRED TO]
RANJAN KUMAR PANIGRAHI VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND 2 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-116] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI SINGH AND EIGHT ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-7-118] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. HARIBHAI RAICHANDBHAI GOTHI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2012-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDBHAI SOMNATHBHAI SUTHAR PROPRIETOR OF GSP INDUSTRIAL VS. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2010-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDBHAI SOMNATHBHAI SUTHAR PROPRIETOR OF GSP INDUSTRIAL VS. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2010-9-242] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA NATH RAI VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS [LAWS(ALL)-2003-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM MOHAN LAL VS. GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-130] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHTE MUSTAFFA KAZMI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-92] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH RAI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-233] [REFERRED TO]
HAZI RAIS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-167] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN PACKED MOVERS VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-211] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
CHARUTAR AROGYA MANDAL VS. PARENTS ASSOCIATION FOR THE MEDICAL/DENTAL STUDENTS [LAWS(GJH)-2012-5-138] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is tenant's appeal by special leave. Though the appeals are three in number the subject matter is one common judgment and therefore, the three are being treated as one appeal. The suit premises are situated in the city of Pune and governed by the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter "the Act" for short). The suit premises are admittedly owned by respondent no. 1 and are held in tenancy by the appellant. Proceedings for eviction of the appellants were initiated on very many grounds At this stage, we are concerned only with the ground of eviction available under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act, which provides that a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the court is satisfied that the tenant has, without the landlord's consent given in writing,, erected on the premises any permanent structure.
(2.)Incidentally, it may be stated that the suit premises where initially owned by one dattaraya Chiplunkar, who died in the year 1974 and his widow, having succeeded to the rights in the property, transferred the same to the respondent no. 1 in the year 1978. The appellant came in the possession of the premises sometime in the year 1961 having acquired the tenancy rights from his predecessor in interest - one puram, who in turn had succeeded the tenancy rights from one Shri Niwas Patki, who was inducted as tenant in the year 1941 by chiplunkar.
(3.)It is not disputed that in the year 1961, the tenant-appellant has raised a permanent structure over the tenancy premises. The structure raised by the appellant consists of a dinning hall, a kitchen and lavatory. According to the landlord-respondent no. 1, the said construction was carried out without obtaining consent of the landlord and without having the building plans sanctioned by the municipal corporation The plea taken by the appellant in the written statement is one of denial of the ground. Insofar as the consent of the landlord to the alleged construction is concerned, the tenant pleaded -"abutting to the road these defendants have constructed a building for restaurant in the year 1961. For that purpose the defendants 1 and 2 have taken a prior sanction of the Pune Municipal Corporation and also the owner Shri chiplunkar". The trial court found the ground for eviction not made out. On an appeal preferred by the landlord-respondents, the decree of the trial court was reversed. In the opinion of the appellate court, the ground for eviction under section 13 (1) (b) of the Act was made out. The aggrieved tenant preferred a petition under article 227 of the Constitution in the High court of Bombay, which has been dismissed.
(2.)Incidentally, it may be stated that the suit premises where initially owned by one dattaraya Chiplunkar, who died in the year 1974 and his widow, having succeeded to the rights in the property, transferred the same to the respondent no. 1 in the year 1978. The appellant came in the possession of the premises sometime in the year 1961 having acquired the tenancy rights from his predecessor in interest - one puram, who in turn had succeeded the tenancy rights from one Shri Niwas Patki, who was inducted as tenant in the year 1941 by chiplunkar.
(3.)It is not disputed that in the year 1961, the tenant-appellant has raised a permanent structure over the tenancy premises. The structure raised by the appellant consists of a dinning hall, a kitchen and lavatory. According to the landlord-respondent no. 1, the said construction was carried out without obtaining consent of the landlord and without having the building plans sanctioned by the municipal corporation The plea taken by the appellant in the written statement is one of denial of the ground. Insofar as the consent of the landlord to the alleged construction is concerned, the tenant pleaded -"abutting to the road these defendants have constructed a building for restaurant in the year 1961. For that purpose the defendants 1 and 2 have taken a prior sanction of the Pune Municipal Corporation and also the owner Shri chiplunkar". The trial court found the ground for eviction not made out. On an appeal preferred by the landlord-respondents, the decree of the trial court was reversed. In the opinion of the appellate court, the ground for eviction under section 13 (1) (b) of the Act was made out. The aggrieved tenant preferred a petition under article 227 of the Constitution in the High court of Bombay, which has been dismissed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.