RAMESH CHAND versus PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY & ANR.

RAMESH CHAND versus PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY & ANR.

The landlord is bound by undertakings-cum-assurances given to the tenant while seeking permission to file a suit for eviction under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Rent Act, 1947, even after repeal and under Section 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Rent Act, 1972. Courts must ensure that tenants receive the benefit of these undertakings and landlords cannot evade their obligations.

Parties
Appellant Tenant: Ramesh Chand; Respondent No. 1 Proforma Party: Prescribed Authority; Respondent No. 2 Landlord: Landlord (Respondent No. 2)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 July 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed to the extent stated; High Court order set aside.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Undertaking Cum Assurance, Statutory Interpretation, Conditional Eviction Orders
Tenancy Law Landlord Tenant Law Eviction Undertaking Cum Assurance Statutory Interpretation Conditional Eviction Orders

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Chand

Appellant Tenant

Prescribed Authority

Respondent No. 1 Proforma Party

Landlord (Respondent No. 2)

Respondent No. 2 Landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether landlord is bound by undertakings-cum-assurances given while seeking permission to file eviction suit under U.P. Rent Act, 1947
  2. 2 Interpretation of Section 43(2)(rr) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord is bound by undertakings-cum-assurances given to the tenant while seeking permission to file a suit for eviction under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Rent Act, 1947, even after repeal and under Section 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Rent Act, 1972. Courts must ensure that tenants receive the benefit of these undertakings and landlords cannot evade their obligations.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed to the extent stated; High Court order set aside.

Orders

  • Prescribed Authority, Nagina, District Bijnor to pass order of eviction against appellant-tenant with necessary directions/orders to landlord for providing alternative accommodation during the period of new construction and ensuring a comparable shop is given to appellant after completion.
  • If landlord fails or is unable to provide alternative accommodation during construction, he shall pay a sum (fixed by Prescribed Authority) per month, reasonably adequate to enable tenant to obtain alternative accommodation.