GURUBACHAN SINGH Vs. RAM NIWAS
LAWS(SC)-2006-5-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on May 24,2006

GURUBACHAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
RAM NIWAS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHALIMARTAR PRODUCTS LTD. V. H.C.SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
GOPPULAL VS. THAKURJI SHRIJI SHRIJI DWARAKADHEESHJI [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PRASAD VS. ANGOORI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
DIPAK BANERJEE VS. LILABATI CHAKRABORTY [REFERRED TO]
DELHI STATIONERS AND PRINTERS VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
DEV KUMAR DIED VS. SWARAN LATA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

NAGA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-11-68] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT INSULATION COMPANY VS. SURAJ PARKASH [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-348] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITABEN BHAILALBHAI BRAHMBHATT VS. DHANSUKHBHAI CHUNILAL PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2014-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR CHAUHAN VS. PUNEESH ROHTAGI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-2-74] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.)The unsuccessful tenants are the Appellants before us in this Appeal. The Respondent is the landlord. The premises in question is situated at Station Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-.
(2.)The Respondent / Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the tenants on the grounds of default in payment of rent and for change of user and sub-letting. It was alleged that the tenants committed default in payment of rent for more than six months. It has further been averred that the tenants have sub-let the premises to Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (in short RTDC) for running a Beer Shop at a rent of Rs. 2100/- per month without taking prior permission of the landlord.
(3.)The Appellants filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The Appellants contended that they had not committed any default in payment of rent and the same has been deposited in the Court. It was stated that the Respondent-Landlord refused to accept the rent. The same was sent by money order which was also not accepted. Being left with no other choice, the tenants deposited the said rent in Court under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short "the Act"). It has also been specifically stated that the premises in question was given to RTDC only for a period of 20 days as the RTDCs shop was under construction and renovation.
;


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