BRIJ KISHORE GUPTA versus VISHWAMITRA KAPUR

BRIJ KISHORE GUPTA versus VISHWAMITRA KAPUR

The introduction of s. 14(11) in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is a clarification and slight modification of the earlier power of the court under the 1952 Act to grant relief to tenants who rectify breaches, such as removal of unauthorised structures. Relief may be granted if the breach is remedied within reasonable time, and the tenant should not be ejected after complying.

Parties
Appellant: Bru Kishore Gupta; Respondent: Vishwamitra Kapur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 January 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal No. 879 dismissed, Appeal No. 121 allowed
Legal Topics
Construction of Unauthorised Structures, Ejectment of Tenant, Repeal of Legislation
Property Law Tenancy Rent Control Construction of Unauthorised Structures Ejectment of Tenant Repeal of Legislation

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bru Kishore Gupta

Appellant

Vishwamitra Kapur

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tenant can be ejected for unauthorised structures after removal of the structures during the pendency of suit
  2. 2 Effect and scope of repeal by Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, especially sections 57(2) & 14(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The introduction of s. 14(11) in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is a clarification and slight modification of the earlier power of the court under the 1952 Act to grant relief to tenants who rectify breaches, such as removal of unauthorised structures. Relief may be granted if the breach is remedied within reasonable time, and the tenant should not be ejected after complying.

Court Disposition

Appeal No. 879 dismissed, Appeal No. 121 allowed

Orders

  • Plaintiff-respondents' suit dismissed in Appeal No. 121
  • Parties to bear their own costs throughout in both appeals