SMT. SHASHI JAIN versus TARSEM LAL (DEAD) & ANR.

SMT. SHASHI JAIN versus TARSEM LAL (DEAD) & ANR.

The appellant-landlady proved both her bona fide need for the premises and the fact that the original tenant had sub-let the premises to respondent no.2 without her written consent. Documentary and oral evidence supported these grounds, and lower authorities' findings were perverse or unreasoned. Thus, eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) and Section 13(2)(ii)(a) was justified.

Parties
Appellant Landlady: Smt. Shashi Jain; Respondent No.1 Tenant: Tarsem Lal (dead); Respondent No.2 Sub Tenant: Rakesh Kumar; Respondents' Counsel: Goodwill Indeevar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bonafide Personal Requirement, Sub Letting, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act
Rent Control Property Law Eviction Bonafide Personal Requirement Sub Letting East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Shashi Jain

Appellant Landlady

Tarsem Lal (dead)

Respondent No.1 Tenant

Rakesh Kumar

Respondent No.2 Sub Tenant

Goodwill Indeevar

Respondents' Counsel

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant-landlady had proved bonafide requirement of the demised premises for her personal use and occupation
  2. 2 Whether respondent no.1-tenant had sub-let the demised premises to respondent no.2 without consent of the landlady

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant-landlady proved both her bona fide need for the premises and the fact that the original tenant had sub-let the premises to respondent no.2 without her written consent. Documentary and oral evidence supported these grounds, and lower authorities' findings were perverse or unreasoned. Thus, eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) and Section 13(2)(ii)(a) was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of Rent Controller, Appellate Authority, and High Court are quashed and set aside.
  • Eviction application under Section 13 is allowed on grounds of bonafide personal requirement and sub-letting.