DEV KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus SMT. SWARAN LATA AND ORS.

DEV KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus SMT. SWARAN LATA AND ORS.

The High Court erred in law in re-appreciating evidence and reversing the Appellate Authority's finding without showing perversity or irrationality in the latter's appreciation of evidence. The landlady failed to prove exclusive possession or parting of possession required to establish sub-letting; evidence relied on, especially from the local Commissioner, was tainted and insufficient.

Parties
Appellant: Dev Kumar (Dead) Through LRs.; Respondent 1 (landlady): Smt. Swaran Lata; Respondents (alleged Sub Tenants): Respondents 2 to 4
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 3.4.92 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.r. No. 3106 of 1983
Outcome
Appeal allowed. High Court's order set aside. Appellate Authority's order affirmed. Application for eviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Sub Letting, Revisional Jurisdiction
Landlord and Tenant Law Eviction Sub Letting Revisional Jurisdiction

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dev Kumar (Dead) Through LRs.

Appellant

Smt. Swaran Lata

Respondent 1 (landlady)

Respondents 2 to 4

Respondents (alleged Sub Tenants)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 3.4.92 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.r. No. 3106 of 1983

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in re-appreciating the evidence and interfering with the conclusion of the Appellate Authority in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
  2. 2 Whether the landlady established the case of sub-letting by the tenant under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in law in re-appreciating evidence and reversing the Appellate Authority's finding without showing perversity or irrationality in the latter's appreciation of evidence. The landlady failed to prove exclusive possession or parting of possession required to establish sub-letting; evidence relied on, especially from the local Commissioner, was tainted and insufficient.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. High Court's order set aside. Appellate Authority's order affirmed. Application for eviction dismissed.

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court in revision set aside.
  • Order of the Appellate Authority affirmed.