RAKESH KUMAR & SHRI SHAKTI KUMAR versus HINDUSTAN EVEREST TOOL LTD.

RAKESH KUMAR & SHRI SHAKTI KUMAR versus HINDUSTAN EVEREST TOOL LTD.

In this case, the combined effect of the notices dated 8th March 1982 and 19th April 1982 and the correspondence with the respondent established that the tenant was in arrears of rent, was demanded to pay, and was warned of eviction for non-payment. Such notices, read as a common person would, constitute valid demand as required by Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Therefore, the High Court erred in setting aside the Rent Control Tribunal's eviction order.

Parties
Appellants: Rakesh Kumar & Shri Shakti Kumar; Respondent: Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 March 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 8.10.1985 of the Delhi High Court in S.a.o. No. 142 of 1985
Outcome
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment and orders set aside. Eviction order restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction for Arrears of Rent, Notice of Demand Validity, Interpretation of Legal Notices
Landlord Tenant Law Rent Control Eviction for Arrears of Rent Notice of Demand Validity Interpretation of Legal Notices

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

Parties

Rakesh Kumar & Shri Shakti Kumar

Appellants

Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 8.10.1985 of the Delhi High Court in S.a.o. No. 142 of 1985

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of demand by the landlord for arrears of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was valid and sufficient to initiate eviction proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

In this case, the combined effect of the notices dated 8th March 1982 and 19th April 1982 and the correspondence with the respondent established that the tenant was in arrears of rent, was demanded to pay, and was warned of eviction for non-payment. Such notices, read as a common person would, constitute valid demand as required by Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Therefore, the High Court erred in setting aside the Rent Control Tribunal's eviction order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. High Court judgment and orders set aside. Eviction order restored.

Orders

  • Decree for eviction not to be executed till 30th September 1988 if respondent files usual undertaking in the Supreme Court within four weeks to hand over peaceful vacant possession by 30th September 1988, pay arrears of rent within one month, pay future compensation monthly, and not induct anyone else into premises....
  • Parties to pay and bear respective costs.