BAL KISHAN versus OM PRAKASH & ANR.

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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bal Kishan

Appellant

Om Prakash

Respondent

Med Ram

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave

  1. 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. 2 Whether legal representative of deceased tenant is a trespasser and whether Rent Controller has jurisdiction
  3. 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