BAL KISHAN versus OM PRAKASH & ANR.
The legal representative of the tenant, having succeeded to permissive possession, cannot claim to be a trespasser and cannot resist eviction proceedings under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973; the Rent Controller retains jurisdiction to proceed as the action and right to sue survive.
- Parties
- Appellant: Bal Kishan; Respondent: Om Prakash; Respondent: Med Ram
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 26 August 1986
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Sub Letting, Legal Representation, Jurisdiction of Rent Controller
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bal Kishan
Appellant
Om Prakash
Respondent
Med Ram
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether legal heir of tenant can be treated as a tenant under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for the purposes of eviction on ground of sub-letting
- 2 Whether legal representative of deceased tenant is a trespasser and whether Rent Controller has jurisdiction
- 3 Applicability of Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in eviction proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The legal representative of the tenant, having succeeded to permissive possession, cannot claim to be a trespasser and cannot resist eviction proceedings under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973; the Rent Controller retains jurisdiction to proceed as the action and right to sue survive.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appellant and sub-tenant liable to be evicted under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment