GURDIAL BATRA versus RAJ KUMAR JAIN

GURDIAL BATRA versus RAJ KUMAR JAIN

Temporary sale of televisions alongside repair business did not constitute change of user under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act; no actionable change unless the landlord's interest is prejudiced.

Parties
Appellant: Gurdial Batra; Respondent: Raj Kumar Jain
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 July 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; eviction order set aside.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Change of User, Statutory Tenant Protections
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Eviction Change of User Statutory Tenant Protections

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurdial Batra

Appellant

Raj Kumar Jain

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether temporary sale of televisions by tenant amounts to change of user under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(2)(ii)(b)
  2. 2 Whether prejudice to the landlord's interest is necessary for change of user under Transfer of Property Act, Section 108(o)

Ratio Decidendi

Temporary sale of televisions alongside repair business did not constitute change of user under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act; no actionable change unless the landlord's interest is prejudiced.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; eviction order set aside.

Orders

  • Order of eviction vacated; Controller's order restored; parties to bear own costs throughout