KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA versus C.K.S. RAO

KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA versus C.K.S. RAO

The certificate issued under Section 13-Al(1)(A)(ii) is conclusive proof of the facts stated therein, and courts cannot go behind it to determine whether a scientific post is held. The High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and rejecting the certificate on alleged technicalities and malafides. Also, a co-owner who receives rent can maintain eviction proceedings without objection from other co-owners. The question of hardship is irrelevant under Section 13-Al for eviction applications.

Parties
Appellant Landlady: Kanta Udharam Jagasia; Respondent Tenant: C.K.S. Rao
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 December 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Bombay High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Competent Authority order restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Landlord Tenant Relationship, Revisional Jurisdiction, Bona Fide Requirement, Bombay Rent Act
Rent Control and Property Law Eviction Landlord Tenant Relationship Revisional Jurisdiction Bona Fide Requirement Bombay Rent Act

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanta Udharam Jagasia

Appellant Landlady

C.K.S. Rao

Respondent Tenant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the certificate issued under Section 13-Al(1)(A)(ii) of the Bombay Rent Act is conclusive proof of holding a scientific post
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in reappreciating evidence in revision under Section 31-F
  3. 3 Whether a co-owner can maintain an eviction petition

Ratio Decidendi

The certificate issued under Section 13-Al(1)(A)(ii) is conclusive proof of the facts stated therein, and courts cannot go behind it to determine whether a scientific post is held. The High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and rejecting the certificate on alleged technicalities and malafides. Also, a co-owner who receives rent can maintain eviction proceedings without objection from other co-owners. The question of hardship is irrelevant under Section 13-Al for eviction applications.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Competent Authority order restored.

Orders

  • High Court order is set aside.
  • Order of eviction by the Competent Authority is restored.