R.C. TAMRAKAR AND ANR. versus NIDI LEKHA

R.C. TAMRAKAR AND ANR. versus NIDI LEKHA

Tenant was not entitled to protection under Section 13(5) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 since arrears of rent were not deposited prior to filing of suit or during pendency before Trial Court; landlady's requirement was bona fide as she cannot be compelled to reside with son and is best judge of own needs; adverse remarks by High Court against subordinate judiciary were unjustified and to be expunged.

Parties
Appellant Tenant: R.C. Tamrakar; Respondent Landlady: Nidilekha; Advocate for Respondent: Ms. Rachna Gupta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal No. 291 of 1993
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Default in Payment of Rent, Bonafide Requirement for Eviction, Judicial Restraint, Adverse Remarks Against Subordinate Judiciary
Rent Control Property Law Default in Payment of Rent Bonafide Requirement for Eviction Judicial Restraint Adverse Remarks Against Subordinate Judiciary

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.C. Tamrakar

Appellant Tenant

Nidilekha

Respondent Landlady

Ms. Rachna Gupta

Advocate for Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal No. 291 of 1993

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent under M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961
  2. 2 Whether landlady's requirement for the premises was bona fide
  3. 3 Whether adverse remarks by High Court against subordinate judiciary were justified

Ratio Decidendi

Tenant was not entitled to protection under Section 13(5) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 since arrears of rent were not deposited prior to filing of suit or during pendency before Trial Court; landlady's requirement was bona fide as she cannot be compelled to reside with son and is best judge of own needs; adverse remarks by High Court against subordinate judiciary were unjustified and to be expunged.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of High Court restoring trial court decree for eviction and rent arrears affirmed.
  • Remarks made by High Court against Presiding Officer of First Appellate Court are expunged and any adverse entries in officer's confidential report shall be deleted and treated as washed off.