BUDHWANTI AND ANR. versus GULAB CHAND PRASAD

BUDHWANTI AND ANR. versus GULAB CHAND PRASAD

The High Court correctly restored the Trial Court's decree of eviction against the tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement. The finding of the Appellate Court was vitiated by errors of law and application of extraneous factors, justifying interference in second appeal. The doctrine of 'in pari delicto' did...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Budhwanti; Respondent: Gulab Chand Prasad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 March 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Special Leave Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Default of Rent, Bona Fide Requirement, Doctrine of in Pari Delicto, Second Appeal Scope
Landlord Tenant Law Civil Procedure Eviction Default of Rent Bona Fide Requirement Doctrine of in Pari Delicto Second Appeal Scope

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Budhwanti

Appellant

Gulab Chand Prasad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Special Leave Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the doctrine of 'in pari delicto' apply to tenants who pay enhanced rents in contravention of Rent Restriction Acts and preclude them from claiming adjustment of excess rent in eviction suits for default?
  2. 2 When can the High Court interfere with findings of fact in second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court correctly restored the Trial Court's decree of eviction against the tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement. The finding of the Appellate Court was vitiated by errors of law and application of extraneous factors, justifying interference in second appeal. The doctrine of 'in pari delicto' did not assist the tenants because there was mutual, voluntary contravention of the Rent Restriction Act; there was no exploitation or compulsion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decree for eviction restored; appellants (tenants) to vacate premises by 30.6.1987.
  • No order as to costs.