AJIT SINGH & ANR. versus JIT RAM & ANR.

AJIT SINGH & ANR. versus JIT RAM & ANR.

The requirement for 'his own use' under s. 13(3)(a)(ii) extends to the landlord's son, being owner and landlord by partition, and the necessary averments had been made and proved. There was no perversity or arbitrariness in the findings of the Appellate Authority. A portion used for residential purposes does not affect eviction when the shop is primarily commercial.

Parties
Appellant: Ajit Singh; Appellant: Appellant No.2 (father of Ajit Singh); Respondent: Jit Ram; Respondent: Respondent No.2 (son of Jit Ram)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; eviction order restored
Legal Topics
Eviction, Personal Requirement of Landlord, Revisional Jurisdiction, Sub Letting
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Eviction Personal Requirement of Landlord Revisional Jurisdiction Sub Letting

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajit Singh

Appellant

Appellant No.2 (father of Ajit Singh)

Appellant

Jit Ram

Respondent

Respondent No.2 (son of Jit Ram)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the personal requirement of the landlord's son satisfies s. 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
  2. 2 Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact under revisional jurisdiction in rent matters
  3. 3 Whether partial residential use of the shop affects eviction for commercial personal requirement

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement for 'his own use' under s. 13(3)(a)(ii) extends to the landlord's son, being owner and landlord by partition, and the necessary averments had been made and proved. There was no perversity or arbitrariness in the findings of the Appellate Authority. A portion used for residential purposes does not affect eviction when the shop is primarily commercial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; eviction order restored

Orders

  • Eviction petition filed by appellants stands allowed
  • Respondents granted 9 months’ time to vacate, subject to usual undertaking in Court within two weeks