M. PADMANABHA SETTY versus K. P. PAPIAH SETTY

M. PADMANABHA SETTY versus K. P. PAPIAH SETTY

A landlord who is in occupation of a non-residential building as a tenant is not 'entitled to possession' for the purposes of s. 8(3)(a)(ii) and therefore may seek eviction of his own tenant for shifting business to his own premises; and, ignoring binding High Court precedent amounts to material irregularity justifying revision by the High Court.

Parties
Appellant/tenant: M. Padmanabha Setty; Respondent/landlord: K. P. Papiah Setty
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 March 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of India, Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated April 9, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1044 of 1962
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Eviction of Tenant, Interpretation of Rental Statutes, Landlord's Entitlement to Possession, Revisionary Powers of High Court
Tenancy Law Property Law Eviction of Tenant Interpretation of Rental Statutes Landlord's Entitlement to Possession Revisionary Powers of High Court

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. Padmanabha Setty

Appellant/tenant

K. P. Papiah Setty

Respondent/landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of India, Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated April 9, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1044 of 1962

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a landlord who is a tenant in another non-residential building is 'entitled to possession' within the meaning of s. 8(3)(a)(ii) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951, and therefore, not entitled to evict his own tenant.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court rightly exercised its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the appellate order.

Ratio Decidendi

A landlord who is in occupation of a non-residential building as a tenant is not 'entitled to possession' for the purposes of s. 8(3)(a)(ii) and therefore may seek eviction of his own tenant for shifting business to his own premises; and, ignoring binding High Court precedent amounts to material irregularity justifying revision by the High Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Tenant is granted two months' time from today to vacate and deliver possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord.