RAGHUNANDAN SARAN ASHOK SARAN & ORS. ETC.ETC. versus PEAREY LAL WORKSHOP (P) LTD. ETC.

RAGHUNANDAN SARAN ASHOK SARAN & ORS. ETC.ETC. versus PEAREY LAL WORKSHOP (P) LTD. ETC.

Tenants cannot be deprived of benefit under section 14(2) of the Act of 1958 merely because they had obtained similar benefit under sub-section 2 of section 13 of the Act of 1952. The deposit required for the benefit under section 14(2) is a deposit made under section 15 of the Act of 1958, and the proviso operates only upon deposits so made. Deposits under section 13(2) of the old Act are excluded from the operation of the proviso to section 14(2); therefore, prior benefit under Act of 1952 does not bar benefit under Act of 1958.

Parties
Appellants: Raghunandan Sarup & Ors.; Respondents: Pearey Lal Workshop (P) Ltd. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 April 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Delhi High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Non Payment of Rent, Statutory Interpretation
Rent Control Landlord Tenant Law Eviction Non Payment of Rent Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raghunandan Sarup & Ors.

Appellants

Pearey Lal Workshop (P) Ltd. & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Delhi High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tenants who obtained benefit of non-eviction under section 13(2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 are entitled to similar benefit under section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
  2. 2 Interpretation of section 14(2) and its proviso under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

Ratio Decidendi

Tenants cannot be deprived of benefit under section 14(2) of the Act of 1958 merely because they had obtained similar benefit under sub-section 2 of section 13 of the Act of 1952. The deposit required for the benefit under section 14(2) is a deposit made under section 15 of the Act of 1958, and the proviso operates only upon deposits so made. Deposits under section 13(2) of the old Act are excluded from the operation of the proviso to section 14(2); therefore, prior benefit under Act of 1952 does not bar benefit under Act of 1958.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed; no order as to costs.