JAGDISH LAL versus PARMANAND

JAGDISH LAL versus PARMANAND

A temporary change of user from the purpose for which the premises was let (general merchant, readymade and cloth merchant) to a restaurant, later reverted to original use, does not justify eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act in the absence of persistent unauthorized user; moreover, an undertaking to vacate does not bar access to Article 136 remedies, though the discretion to grant leave remains with the Supreme Court.

Parties
Appellant: Jagdish Lal; Respondent: Parmanand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 25.5.98 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.r. No. 2271 of 1998
Outcome
Appeal disposed of
Legal Topics
Article 136 SLP, Eviction, Change of User, Undertaking to Court
Constitutional Law Rent Control Landlord and Tenant Article 136 SLP Eviction Change of User Undertaking to Court

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jagdish Lal

Appellant

Parmanand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 25.5.98 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.r. No. 2271 of 1998

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does giving an undertaking before the High Court to vacate premises preclude a tenant from filing SLP under Article 136?
  2. 2 Does temporary change of business use amount to 'change of user' under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, warranting eviction?

Ratio Decidendi

A temporary change of user from the purpose for which the premises was let (general merchant, readymade and cloth merchant) to a restaurant, later reverted to original use, does not justify eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act in the absence of persistent unauthorized user; moreover, an undertaking to vacate does not bar access to Article 136 remedies, though the discretion to grant leave remains with the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of

Orders

  • Appellant (tenant) is allowed to stay in the premises as tenant, subject to payment of rent at Rs. 1,500 per month, enhanced from Rs. 600 per month.
  • No order as to costs.